DliWM, 

Section, 


sec 

A.  i 


\ 


k 


X 


\ 


PLEA 


FOR 


VOLUNTARY  SOCIETIES, 


DEFENCE 


OF   THE 


DECISIONS  OF  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  OF  1836, 


AGAINST    THE    STRICTURES    OF   THE 


PRINCETON  REVIEWERS  AND  OTHERS. 


BY    A    MEMBER    OF    THE    ASSEMBLY. 


NEW-YORK: 
PUBLISHED    BY   JOHN    S.    TAYLOR 

THEOLOGICAL  AND  SUNDAY-SCHOOL  BOOKSELLER, 
Brick  Church  Chapel,  opposite  the  City  Hall. 


18  3  7 


►  * 


WILLIAM    S  .    DORR, 
PRINTER, 

123  Fulton  Street. 


.  -v 

r  pi: 


§fc 


contents: 


PREFATORY    REMARKS. 


PAGE. 


Publications  and  measures  of  the  minority  of  the  Assembly  of  1836 
since  its  rising — To  prevent  division,  the  object  of  this  work.     13 

CHAPTER  I. 

A  Plea  for  Voluntary  Associations  in  the  Work  of  Mis- 
sions— General  Principles. 

Signs  of  the  times  indicating  the  approaching  conversion  of  the 
world — The  Church,  a  spiritual  society  for  a  spiritual  work — 
Associated  action  necessary — Different  views  of  the  way  in 
which  this  action  should  be  applied — Views  of  the  friends  of 
Voluntary  Associations — Views  of  the  friends  of  ecclesias- 
tical organizations — Reasons  for  the  former — 1.  Christ  has 
left  this  matter  to  the  decision  of  every  man's  conscience — 
2.  The  Bible  does  not  enjoin  this  work  on  the  Church,  as  such, 
to  be  done  through  her  judicatories — Denominational  organi- 
zations not  enjoined  by  the  Bible— The  higher  judicatories  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  not  of  Divine  appointment — To  be  done  by 
the  Church  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  work  be  done  by  ecclesias- 
tical organization: — Efforts  of  the  primitive  Church  voluntary — 
Inexpediency  of  Missionary  effort  through  Church  courts — 1. 
The  General  Assembly  not  well  adapted  to  this  woik — 2.  Defec- 
tive responsible n ess  of  Boards  ecclesiastically  organized — 3.  Evil 
effect  of  so  much  property  and  secular  business  on  the  spirituality 
of  church  judicatories — 4.  Ecclesiastical  organization  not  favor- 
able to  unembarrassed  and  alert  action — Reference  to  various 
examples  of  the  voluntary  character.^ 17 


VIII  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER    II. 


PAGE. 


31 


Defence  of  the  decisions  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1836 
—Attempted  organization  of  a  Board  of  Foreign  Missions 
—The  Assembly  of  1836,  a  large  one— Occasions  of  this— His- 
tory of  the  attempted  organization — Resolutions  of  the  Assembly 
of  1835— Mr.  Latta's  resolution— Less  than  one  third  of  the 
Assembly  present— Terms  of  agreement  submitted  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Assembly  to  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh— Accepted  by 
the  Synod— Resolutions  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia— These 
documents  referred  by  the  Assembly  of  1836  to  a  Committee— 
Dr.  Phillips'  report  of  the  majority  of  this  Committee— The  plan 
rejected  by  the  Assembly— Protest  of  Dr.  Miller  and  others— As- 
sembly's answer  by  Dr.  Peters 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Princeton  Reviewers  Reviewed— Hasty  publication  of 
their  Review— Errors  arising  from  this— Their  history  of  the 
missionary  case  incorrect— Examination  of  the  true  origin 
of  the  proposed  ecclesiastical  organization— The  Reviewers 
attribute  it  to  Dr.  J.  H.  Rice— Dr.  Rice's  overture  written  in 
1831— The  Princeton  professors  not  led  by  it  to  desire  an 
ecclesiastical  missionary  organization— Dr.  Miller's  views  in 
1833  adverse  to  such  organization— But  in  favour  of  it  in  1836 — 
The  change  not  owing  to  Dr.  Rice's  overture— The  plan  connected 
with  the  Pittsburgh  Convention— Resolutions  of  that  Convention, 
—Extracts  from  its  memorial  to  the  General  Assembly  of 
1835— Its  principles  virtually  sustained  by  that  Assembly— Other 
particulars  showing  the  origin  of  the  proposed  organization....    48 

CHAPTER    IV. 

The  Princeton  Reviewers  Reviewed— Further  evidence  that 

THE    PROPOSAL   TO    ORGANIZE    A  FOREIGN  MISSIONARY    BOARD  OF 

the  General  Assembly  originated  in  the  Pittsburgh  Con- 
vention— The  overture  of  Dr.  Rice  explained — Statements 
of  Dr.  Miller— The  Pittsburgh  Convention  make  no  reference  to 
Dr.  Rice's  overture— That  paper  does  not  sanction  the  measures 
of  the  Convention  and  the  Assembly  of  1835— Nor  provide  for  a 


CONTENTS.  IX 

PAGE. 

permanent  board— Views  of  Dr.  Rice  in  1828— Quotation  from  his 
Review  of  Beecher's  Sermons— His  letter  to  the  American  Home 
Missionary   Society  in  1829— To  Dr.  "Wisner  in  1830. 64 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  Princeton  Reviewers  Reviewed — Discussion  of  the  right 
of  the  Assembly  to  conduct  missions — The  agreement  with 
the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh  unconstitutional  and  incomplete 
—Positions  of  the  Reviewers — 1.  That  the  General  Assembly  of 
1836  was  bound  to  appoint  the  proposed  board — Examination  of 
the  reasons  by  which  this  is  supported — The  right  of  the  Assem- 
bly to  conduct  missions  under  certain  restrictions  admitted — The 
Constitution  on  this  point — Does  not  confer  the  power  of  appoint- 
ing a  permanent  Board  of  Missions  over  the  heads  of  the  Presby- 
teries— The  conditions  attached  to  the  proposed  organization,  a 
reason  for  its  rejection — The  contract  with  the  Synod  of  Pitts- 
burgh not  completed  by  the  Committee  of  the  General  Assembly 
of  1835 — Right  of  the  Assembly  of  1836  to  reject  it  without  a  vio- 
lation of  good  faith — Correction  of  the  Reviewers  as  to  remarks 
of  Dr.  Peters — Whence  the  right  of  the  Assembly  to  conduct 
Missions — Its  limitations 78 

CHAPTER   VI. 

The  Princeton  Reviewers  Reviewed — The  Charge  of  In- 
consistency Refuted — The  positions  of  the  Majority  not 
new — The  Reviewers'  misconception  of  them — The  same  prin- 
ciples published  in  1830 — Quotation  from  Mr.  Peters'  "  Plea 
for  Union  in  the  West" — The  question  at  issue  not  a  new 
one. 94 

CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Princeton  Reviewers  Reviewed — Unreasonableness  of 
the  claims  ofthe  minority — 2d.  Position  of  the  Reviewers,  that 
the  proposed  organization  "is  reasonable  and  expedient" — their 
arguments  for  this  examined — The  measure  not  "  reciprocal,"  as  is 
asserted — An  ecclesiastical  organization  unfair  because  it  would 
bind  to  support  it  those  who  do  not  approve  it — The  General  As- 
sembly the  "mutual  representative"  of  both  portions  ofthe  Church 


X  CONTENTS. 

PAGE, 

— The  minority  may  not  use  their  "natural  right"  so  as  to  destroy 
the  rights  of  others — How  they  can  carry  their  plans  into  efiect 
ecclesiastically — The  proposed  measure  voluntary  and  not  eccle- 
siastical in  its  origin — 3d.  Position  of  the  Reviewers — That  the 
Assembly  ought  to  organize  a  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  be- 
cause a  portion  of  the  Church  desires  it — The  minority  have  no 
claim  to  its  adoption  ecclesiastically  by  the  whole  Church 102 

CHAPTER   VIII. 

The  Princeton  Reviewers  Reviewed — The  4th  argument  of 
the  Reviewers — That  other  denominations  have  their  organiza- 
tions for  Missionary  purposes — Yet  these  are  mostly  voluntary— 
An  ecclesiastical  organization  not  consistent  with  the  liberal 
character  of  the  American  Presbyterian  Church,  whose  glory  it 
is  that  it  is  les3  exclusive  than  other  denominations — Example 
of  the  Moravians  not  favourable  to  the  purpose  of  the  Reviewers 
— Results  of  their  Missions  compared  with  those  of  Voluntary 
Societies — 5th.  Argument  of  theRe  viewers,  that  the  proposed  plan 
is  essential  to  the  bringing  of  the  Church,  in  its  present  state,  into 
action — How  the  Churches  have  been  brought  to  this  state — 
Influence  of  "  monied  men" 112 

CHAPTER   IX. 

The  Princeton  Reviewers  Reviewed — Trial  and  Restoration 
of  Mr.  Barnes — Influences  leading  to  Division  of  the 
Church  deprecated — History  of  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes — Dr. 
Miller's  Resolution  in  the  Assembly  of  1836 — Mr.  Laberee's— 
Protest  of  Dr.  Phillips  and  others— Protest  of  Dr.  Hoge  and 
others — The  Assembly's  answer — Notices  of  the  complaints  of 
the  Reviewers  on  the  case — On  the  mode  of  taking  the  question 
—Mr.  Barnes  not  a  Taylorite— The  "  Edwardeans"  not  incon- 
sistent in  restoring  him — Dr.  Peters'  speech  misrepresented  by  the 
Reviewers — The  correct  report  of  that  speech  from  the  New- 
York  Obs. — The  Assembly  did  not  endorse  the  alleged  errors — 
The  Reviewers  surprised  at  the  Assembly's  answer — The  real 
ground  of  the  alarm  expressed  by  the  Reviewers — Their  remarks 
on  the  impropriety  of  divisive  measures  correct — Yet  their  attack 
on  the  majority  of  the  Assembly,  and  on  individuals  in  it,  tend  to 
division— Resolutions  of  the  Presbytery  of  New-Brunswick 126 


CONTENTS.  XI 

PAGE. 

CHAPTER    X. 

Proposed  Division  of  the  Church — The  Secret  Circular  and  the 
Pamphlet  of  the  Confidential  Committee — Intended  to  promote 
division — Their  unfair  presentation  of  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes  and 
the  Foreign  Missionary  question — Avowal  of  the  purpose  to  pro- 
duce separation — Meeting  of  the  minority  at  Pittsburgh — Their 
plan  of  operation — Comments  on  the  Secret  Circular  by  a  Corres- 
pondent of  the  Philadelphia  Observer — Its  tendency — its  depar- 
ture from  Presbyterian  principles — Its  authors* 156 

CHAPTER   XI. 

Proposed  Division  of  the  Church — The  Adopting  Act  of  1729 — 
Schism  in  1741 — Dr.  Miller's  account  of  the  re-union  in  1758 — 
Alarm  of  the  minority  arises  from  a  fear  of  losing  power — The 
majority  desire  not  ascendency  but  protection — Concluding  re- 
marks       175 


,..-  . 


PREFATORY    REMARKS. 


Since  the  rising  of  the  last  General  Assembly  of 
the  Prssbyterian  Church,  the  decisions  of  that  body, 
on  the  subject  of  Foreign  Missions,  and  in  the  case 
of  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  have  been  assailed  by  a 
multitude  of  anonymous  writers,  whose  communica- 
tions have  been  addressed  to  the  public  every  week 
through  the  "Presbyterian"  published  in  Philadel- 
phia, the  "Pittsburgh  Herald"  the  "  Western  Pres- 
byterian Herald"  of  Louisville,  Kentucky,  and  other 
papers  under  the  control  of  the  members  and  friends 
of  the  minority  of  the  Assembly.  Among  these,  one 
Quarterly,  the  "  Biblical  Repertory  and  Theolo- 
gical Revieiv,  conducted  by  an  Association  of  Gen- 
tlemen in  Princeton"  early  took  the  field.  Most  of 
their  strictures  have  been  republished  in  the  above 
papers  and  widely  circulated.  In  the  mean  time,  a 
secret  "Circular"  was  early  prepared  and  addressed 
to  numerous  individuals  of  the  disaffected  party,  in- 
viting their  attention  to  the  question  of  a  division  of 
the  Church  and  other  scismatical  measures.  This 
Circular  was  signed  by  the  Rev.  Drs.  Phillips  and 

2 


14  PREFATORY    REMARKS, 

McElroy  and  Messrs.  Potts  and  Krebs,  ministers,  and 
Messrs.  Rankin,  Auchincloss  and  Lenox,  elders,  of 
New- York,  Rev.  Dr.  Breckinridge,  (one  of  the  " Gen- 
tlemen in  Princeton"  and  a  Professor  in  the  Theo- 
logical Seminary  there,)  the  Rev.  Dr.  McDowell,  Sec- 
retary of  the  Assembly's  Board  of  Missions,  and  the 
Rev.  Mr.  McFarland,  Secretary  of  the  Assembly's 
Board  of  Education,  both  of  Philadelphia.  These 
gentlemen  claim  to  be  a  committee  of  the  minority 
of  the  last  General  Assembly,  and  to  have  been  ap- 
pointed in  Pittsburgh,  at  a  confidential  meeting  held 
immediately  after  the  dissolution  of  the  Assembly. 
The  duty  assigned  them,  it  appears,  was  u  to  prepare 
and  circulate  a  suitable  publication  on  the  state  of 
the  Church."  They  have,  accordingly,  more  recent- 
ly, published  a  Pamphlet  of  forty-one  pages,  over 
their  own  signatures,  entitled  an  "An  Address  to  the 
Ministers,  Elders  and  Members  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  in  the  United  States?  In  this  address  they 
declare,  for  reasons  which  they  urge  as  important, 
that,  "whatever  else  may  be  dark,  this  is  clear,  we 
cannot  continue  in  the  same  body.11  And  again,  uIn 
some  way  or  other,  these  men1''  (the  majority  of  -the 
last  Assembly  and  the  members  of  the  Presbyteries 
and  churches  which  they  represent,)  "  must  ee 
separated  from  us."  In  what  manner  this  is  to 
be  effected,  they  do  not  venture  to  announce.  It  is 
apparent,  however,  from  the  urgency  with  which 
they  invite  their  partizans  to  the  next  General  As- 
sembly, that  they  intend,  by  the  influence  of  their 
publications  and  their  private  correspondence,  to 
procure  a  majority  in  that  body,  and  to  exclude 
the   members   and   friends   of  the   majority  of  the 


FREFATORY    REMARKS.  15 

last  Assembly.  Though  we  have  not  the  slightest 
apprehension  that  such  a  result  will  be  found 
practicable,  we  do  expect  that  the  extensively  con- 
certed measures  of  these  gentlemen,  conducted 
with  the  industry  and  decision,  which  have  marked 
their  progress  hitherto,  (as  far  as  it  has  been  develop- 
ed,) will  produce  a  state  of  feeling  adverse  to  that 
peace  and  co-operation  in  every  good  work,  which 
we  are  sure  is  desired  by  a  large  majority  of  the 
ministers  and  members  of  our  church.  To  prevent, 
as  far  as  possible,  the  occurrence  of  this  unfriendly 
state  of  feeling  is  our  earnest  wish,  and  shall  be  our 
endeavor.  For  this  purpose,  however,  we  have  no 
party  organization,  such  as  the  above,  no  committees 
of  publication  or  of  correspondence.  We  have  felt 
and  do  still  cherish  a  calm  security  in  the  protection 
of  the  Great  Head  of  the  church.  But  it  has  appeared 
to  the  writer  of  the  following  pages,  and  to  several  of 
his  valued  brethren  with  whom  he  has  conferred, 
that  the  history  of  the  measures  proposed  to  the  last 
Assembly,  and  the  reasons  of  its  decisions,  ought  to 
be  briefly  exhibited  and  presented,  in  a  convenient 
form,  to  the  public,  that  the  members  of  our  extended 
communion,  and  the  friends  of  missions  generally, 
may  have  in  their  hands  the  means  of  refuting  the 
groundless  assumptions  and  false  reasonings  of  those 
who  would  "  cause  divisions'1  among  us. 

In  accomplishing  this  work  we  have  presented  the 
most  important  documents,  in  their  order,  and  have 
found  ourselves  under  the  necessity  of  controverting 
several  of  the  statements  of  those  by  whom  the  deci- 
sions of  the  Assembly  have  been  assailed.  We  regret 
the  truth  of  the  remark,  however,  that  many  of  the 


16  PREFATORY    REMARKS. 

statements  and  objections  of  our  opponents  have  been 
presented  and  urged  in  a  style  of  vulgarity  and  of 
personal  abuse  altogether  unworthy  of  the  religious 
press.  This  has  been  especially  the  case  with  the 
productions  of  the  numerous  editorial  and  anonymous 
writers  in  the  newspapers  before  named.  We  cannot 
regard  it  our  duty,  therefore,  to  meet  the  many  insinu- 
ations, inuendoes  and  reckless  assaults  upon  individ- 
ual character,  in  which  they  have  indulged.  We 
know  that  these  assaults  are  as  undeserved  by  us,  as 
they  are  unworthy  of  those  who  make  them ;  and  to 
attempt  their  refutation  would  lead  us  into  a  mode 
of  warfare,  for  which  we  confess  ourselves  ill  adapted, 
and  the  consequences  of  which,  in  most  cases,  are 
such  as  good  men  deplore.  Nor  is  this  necessary. 
Most  of  the  statements  and  arguments,  on  which  the 
minority  of  the  Assembly  and  their  friends  have  urged 
these  appeal  to  the  public,  are  found  condensed,  and 
in  a  somewhat  less  objectionable  style  in  the  "  Bibli- 
cal Repertory."  Our  remarks,  therefore,  so  far  as 
they  are  intended  to  meet  the  positions  assumed  by 
our  opponents,  will  be  principally  confined  to  the 
statements  and  reasonings  of  the  conductors  of  that 
Periodical. 


New-York, 
Oct.  1836. 


17 


CHAPTER   I. 

A    PLEA    FOR    VOLUNTARY    ASSOCIATIONS    IN    THE 
WORK    OF  MISSIONS.       GENERAL  PRINCIPLES. 

It  is  the  revealed  purpose  of  God  to  evangelize  the 
world  by  the  instrumentality  of  his  church.;  and 
both  prophesies  and  providential  signs  indicate  that 
the  time  is  at  hand  for  the  accomplishment  of  this 
glorious  event.  The  twelve  hundred  and  sixty  pro- 
phetic years  are  drawing  to  a  close  ;  and  the  day  of 
vengeance  is  in  his  heart,  because  the  year  of  his 
redeemed  is  come:  The  overturnings,  which  are  to 
bring  down  the  mountains  and  exalt  the  vallies,  have 
commenced.  The  sun  is  darkened  and  the  moon  is 
blood  ;  and  the  stars  of  heaven  fall.  All  the  forms 
of  governmental  opposition  to  the  gospel  are  tottering. 
Pagan,  Mahometan  and  Papal  governments  are  in 
their  dotage ;  and  it  is  remarkable  that,  just  at  this 
time,  Christianity,  with  the  vigor  of  a  renewed  youth, 
and  armed  with  all  the  facilities  of  modern  science, 
arts,  wealth  and  enterprise,  is  organizing  her  legions 
for  the  last  onset  and  for  certain  victory. 

The  church,  whose  instrumental  agency  is  to 
achieve  the  emancipation  of  the  world  from  bondage 
and  its  joyful  reconciliation  to  God,  is  composed  of 
all  the  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus, — all  converted  men, 
associated  by  a  public  profession  and  covenants,  under 
whatever  form,  for  the  maintainance  of  the  worship 

2* 


18  PLEA    FOR    VOLUNTARY 

of  God  and  for  the  advancement  of  his  cause.     It  is 
wholly  a  spiritual  society,  for  a  spiritual  work. 

This  universal  church  of  Christ  exists  elementa- 
rily in  local  organizations,  with  their  members  and 
officers  for  purposes  of  edification,  worship  and  dis- 
cipline. But  for  more  general  purposes,  and  espe- 
cially for  those  aggressive  movements  which  are 
necessary  for  the  subjugation  of  the  world  to  Christ, 
associated  action  is  indispensable.  The  work  to  be 
accomplished  is  not  only  the  most  important,  but  the 
most  arduous  ever  committed  to  men, — requiring  a 
greater  amount  of  cultivated  intellect,  glowing  zeal, 
exuberent  munificence,  practical  wisdom,  self-deny- 
ing toil  and  effectual  prayer,  than  the  world  has  ever 
seen. 

The  foregoing  positions,  it  is  belived,  will  be  ad- 
mitted; but  the  manner  in  which  the  associated 
energies  of  the  church  shall  be  applied  to  advance, 
with  the  greatest  safety,  efficiency  and  success,  the 
work  of  missions,  has  become  a  subject  of  deep  and 
general  interest,  and,  in  our  own  church,  a  subject 
of  no  small  difficulty.  A  difference  of  opinion  has 
arisen,  attended  with  strong  and  excited  feeling 
threatening  even  a  division  of  the  church. 

On  the  one  hand,  a  large  majority  of  those  who 
have,  hitherto,  been  most  actively  engaged  in  pro- 
moting the  cause  of  missions,  and  other  objects  of 
christian  philanthropy,  have  regarded  themselves  as 
perfectly  free  to  associate,  for  these  purposes,  in  any 
manner  which  might  seem  best  adapted  to  the  object. 
The  right  of  individual  property  being  secured  to 
them  by  the  principles  of  the  Bible,  as  well  as  the 
laws  of  the  land,  they  have  supposed  that,  by  the 


ASSOCIATIONS.  19 

laws  of  Christ's  house,  they  possess  entire  personal 
liberty,  and  are  under  solemn  obligations,  to  dispose 
of  it  according  to  their  best  discretion,  for  useful  pur- 
poses. Their  associations  for  such  purposes  have, 
accordingly,  been  free  and  voluntary,  unsupported 
by  civil  or  ecclesiastical  power.  Such  are  most  of 
the  great  benevolent  societies  of  this  country,  the 
Bible,  the  Tract,  the  Sunday  School,  the  Education, 
the  Home  and  Foreign  Missionary  and  Temperance 
societies.  The  supporters  of  these  institutions  have 
been  accustomed  to  discriminate  between  those  duties 
which  are  appropriate  to  the  official  functionaries  of 
the  church,  such  as  the  preservation  of  doctrinal 
purity,  the  maintainance  of  discipline,  the  ordination 
and  government  of  the  ministry,  &c,  and  those  per- 
sonal duties  which  are  submitted  to  the  discretion  of 
individual  christians.  To  the  latter  class,  in  their 
view,  belong  the  contribution  and  disbursement  of 
money  for  the  support  of  missions  and  other  purposes 
of  benevolence  ;  and  in  the  exercise  of  their  individ- 
ual discretion,  guided  by  the  light  of  God's  counte- 
nance and  favor,  they  have  voluntarily  associated  in 
the  missionary  societies  above  named,  whose  opera- 
tions are  conducted  by  boards  of  trust,  chosen  annu- 
ally for  the  single  purposes  of  exploring  and  supply- 
ing, to  the  extent  of  the  means  placed  at  their  disposal, 
the  wants  of  the  destitute.  These  boards  are  ac- 
countable only  to  the  christian  community,  whose 
servants  they  are,  and  are  dependent  on  their  faithful 
and  successful  exertions  for  public  confidence  and 
patronage.  They  have  no  concern  with  the  licen- 
sing or  government  of  the  ministry,  nor  with  any 
thing  that  appertains  to   the   authority  of  church 


20  PLEA    FOR    VOLUNTARY 

courts,  but  are  helpers  of  the  church,  as  faithful 
members,  by  employing  and  sustaining  such  mission- 
aries only  as  are  approved  by  the  proper  judicatories 
and  pronounced  qualified  for  their  work. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  has,  of  late,  become  the  opin- 
ion of  many  in  our  communion,  that  missionary  ef- 
forts for  the  supply  of  the  destitute  and  the  conver- 
sion of  the  world  ought  to  be  submitted  to  the  super- 
vision and  control  of  the  judicatories  of  the  church, 
and  that  the  authority  of  these  bodies  to  organize 
and  direct  such  operations  is  the  same  as  that  which 
they  possess  for  the  preservation  of  doctrine  and  the 
maintainance  of  discipline.  They  maintain  that  the 
"  funds17  of  the  members  of  the  church,  "by  the  laws 
of  all  social  order,  ought  to  come  into  the  treasury  of 
the  body  to  which  its  possessors  belong,"*  and  that 
all  the  secular  and  financial  labor  involved  in  the 
work  of  missions  ought  to  be  determined  on  and  di- 
rected by  the  church,  represented  in  her  judicatories  ; 
that  not  only  the  missionaries,  but  also  the  boards  of 
trust  and  agencies  ought  all  to  depend,  for  their  be- 
ing and  continuance,  upon  the  suffrage  of  the  church, 
thus  represented.  In  accommodation  to  these  views, 
(though  they  are  entertained,  as  we  believe,  by  only 
a  respectable  minority  of  the  church,)  the  existing 
Boards  of  Missions  and  of  Education  of  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly  have  been  formed.  These  are  called 
"  ecclesiastical  or  church  organizations,"  and  it  is 
between  the  friends  of  these  boards  and  the  friends 
and  supporters  of  the  "  Voluntary  Societies"  before 
named  that  a  dispute  has  arisen. 

*  See  "Memorial  of  the  Pittsburgh  Convention,"  1835. 


ASSOCIATIONS.  21 

For  their  aversion  to  church  organizations  for  mis- 
sionary purposes,  and  their  preference  of  voluntary- 
societies,  the  friends  of  the  latter  offer  to  the  consi- 
deration of  their  brethren  the  following  reasons. 

1.  For  church  courts  to  assume  the  control  and 
direction  of  missionary  operations  and  disbursements 
is  an  attempt  to  subject  to  ecclesiastical  legislation 
that  which  the  Great  Head  of  the  church  has  left  to 
the  unbiased  decision  of  every  man's  conscience. 
Though  Jesus  Christ  has  made  it  the  duty  of  every 
man  to  give  as  God  has  prospered  him,  he  has  not 
authorized  any  ecclesiastical  tribunal  to  assess  the 
amount  of  each  one's  contribution,  nor  to  prescribe 
the  objects  or  the  modes  of  its  administration.    Alms- 
giving, whether  for  the  alleviation  of  distress  or  the 
conversion  of  the  world,  is  one  of  those  relative  duties 
which  no  human  legislation  can  enforce.     According 
to  the  definition  of  Dr.  Paley,  it  is  "  a  duty  of  imper- 
fect obligation,"  which  cannot  be  measured  or  regu- 
lated by  civil  or  cannon  law.     If  this  is  admitted, 
(and  it  cannot  be  denied,)  then  is  the  claim  of  a 
divinely  instituted  organization  for  the  above  pur- 
poses precluded ;  for  there  cannot  be  a  perfect  free- 
dom of  discretion  in  regard  to  the  amount  and  mode 
of  giving,  in  the  face  of  a  divine  prescription  fixing 
both  the  mode  and  the  channel  of  our  contributions. 

2.  There  is  no  enactment  in  the  Bible,  enjoining  it 
on  the  church,  as  such,  in  her  organized  form,  by  her 
judicatories,  to  evangelize  the  world. 

To  the  whole  church,  as  such,  certainly  no  such 
command  was  given,  for  the  whole  church,  by  a  visi- 
ble Catholic  church  organization,  to  prosecute  the 
work  of  missions.     From  the  beginning,  for  three 


22  PLEA    FOR    VOLUNTARY 

hundred  years,  the  church  was  in  the  fire  of  unre- 
mitted persecution,  and  could  not  act  in  any  such 
visible  and  methodical  manner.  And  when  she 
exchanged  persecution  for  the  patronage  of  a  power- 
ful civil  government,  she  was  too  extensive  to  act  as 
one  body,  even  for  the  preservation  of  doctrine  and 
of  salutary  discipline.  There  is,  indeed,  upon  sacred 
record,  no  chartered  organization  of  the  whole  church, 
with  her  officers  and  measures,  and  her  supreme  judi- 
catory, for  the  performance  of  any  work.  The  claim 
of  the  Papal  church  to  universal  authority,  as  one 
visible,  organized  community,  is  regarded  by  all  Pro- 
testants as  a  fiction,  and  the  evils  of  its  attempted 
administration  are  a  warning  to  all  Protestant  church- 
es to  resist  the  very  beginnings  of  principles  which 
have  spread  darkness  and  ruin  over  so  many  ages 
and  countries. 

When  our  brethren,  therefore,  claim  that  the  church, 
as  such,  is  bound  to  conduct  the  work  of  missions,  by 
her  judicatories,  they  cannot  mean  the  whole  church, 
but  only  that  each  denomination,  by  itself,  is  thus 
bound.  But  has  God  organized  the  several  denomi- 
nations, and  enjoined  it  on  each  to  enterprize  the 
propagation  of  the  gospel  in  its  church  form  1  Where 
is  the  distinctive  organization  of  each  recorded,  and 
where  the  direction  that  each  shall  perform  its  labors 
of  love  in  its  distinctive  form  as  a  church  ?  Whence 
come  separations,  and  divisions  and.  sectarian  orga- 
nizations? Is  God  the  author  of  denominational 
churches  ?  And  has  he  forbidden  them  to  volunteer, 
•and  mingle  their  common  charities  and  prayers  for 
the  conversion  of  the  world  ?  Has  he  commanded 
them  to  march  under  separate  banners,  and  do  what- 


ASSOCIATIONS.  23 

ever  they  do  ecclesiastically,  each  denomination  by 
itself,  and  each  by  the  authority  of  its  own  church 
courts  ?  Is  it  any  where  ordained  in  the  Bible  that 
the  Episcopal,  the  Baptist,  or  the  Methodist  church 
in  its  distinctive  character,  as  a  church,  shall  prose- 
cute the  work  of  missions  1  Where  then  is  the  au- 
thority or  the  obligation  binding  the  Presbyterian 
church  to  do  it  in  this  particular  way  ? 

Again.  Are  the  higher  judicatories  of  our  church 
of  divine  appointment  ?  Were  there  no  General  As- 
sembly and  no  Synods,  would  not  the  Presbyterian 
church  exist  in  her  local  -churches  and  her  Presbyte- 
ries J  Where,  then,  is  the  command  that  the  Presby- 
terian church  shall  propogate  the  gospel  by  the  inter- 
vention and  under  the  administration  and  control  of 
the  General  Assembly  ?  There  is  no  such  command, 
and  no  revealed  direction  specifying  at  all  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  church  shall  send  out  her  energies 
for  the  conversion  of  the  world.  This  is  left  open 
for  the  free  exercise  of  discretion  and  preference. 

Nor  is  it  necessary  that  the  work  should  be  done 
by  the  church,  in  her  ecclesiastical  organization,  in 
order  to  its  being  done  by  the  church,  and  in  a  man- 
ner acceptable  to  God.  What  is  the  church,  but  the 
collective  body  of  Christ's  disciples  ?  And  what  are 
the  conscience  and  the  faith  of  the  church,  but  the 
conscience  and  the  faith  of  her  individual  members  ? 
What  then  are  the  duties  of  the  church,  but  the  du- 
ties of  the  individuals  who  constitute  it  ?  Now,  it  is 
but  a  small  portion  of  the  duties  which  the  members 
of  the  church  are  bound  to  perform,  that  they  can 
accomplish  through  the  church  ecclesiastically.  It 
is  the  duty  of  the  church  to  build  houses  for  the  wor- 


24  PLEA    FOR    VOLUNTARY 

ship  of  God,  but  must  she  do  this  ecclesiastically,  by 
her  Sessions,  Presbyteries,  Synods,  or  General  Assem- 
bly ?  And  if  she  does  it  by  the  discreet  influence  of 
her  members,  availing  themselves,  by  association,  of 
the  contributions  of  others,  does  she  not  fulfill  her 
obligation  ?  So  she  must  build  school-honses  and 
colleges,  and  become  the  light  of  the  world  and  the 
salt  of  the  earth  ;  and  if,  in  any  lawful  way,  she  se- 
cures these  results,  will  not  God  approve  of  her  ac- 
tion, as  a  fulfillment  of  the  obligation  of  the  church, 
as  such  ?  Why,  then,  may  she  not,  in  the  same  free 
and  voluntary  manner,  collect  and  disburse  money 
for  the  support  of  duly  authorized  ministers,  both  at 
home  and  abroad  ?  In  what  other  manner  did  the 
primitive  church  propagate  the  gospel  ?  Did  she  do 
it  by  her  judicatories  ?  Where  did  her  General  As- 
sembly meet,  and  where  were  her  boards  of  trust,  to 
act  in  the  name  of  this  body  ?  She  had  funds,  it  is 
true,  for  the  relief  of  the  poor,  but  even  these  were 
too  secular  for  her  ministers  to  be  concerned  with, 
and  an  order  of  men  was  appointed  to  superintend 
the  administration  of  this  charity.  There  was  no 
board  of  missions  for  the  heathen,  appointed  by  the 
judicatories  of  the  church  ; — no  central  treasury  for 
the  funds  of  the  church.  Yet  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles exhibit  the  missionary  enterprise  prosecuted  by 
individual  effort  and  voluntary  association  with  more 
vigor  and  success  than  has  marked  its  progress  at 
any  subsequent  period. 

The  church,  then,  may  prosecute  the  work  of 
missions,  as  a  church,  though  she  do  it  wholly  by 
voluntary  associations,  without  the  interposition  of 
any  of  her  judicatories.     All  which  heaven  has  laid 


ASSOCIATIONS.  25 

>■ 

on  the  church  is  the  responsibility  of  seeing  that  the 
work  is  done ;  and  this,  as  we  have  seen,  is  the 
responsibility  of  her  individual  members.  They 
are  bound  also  to  do  it  in  the  best  way  they  can. 

We  come  now  to  the  question  of  expediency.  Is 
it  best  that  the  church,  in  her  endeavors  to  evange- 
lize the  world,  should  act  by  her  judicatories  ?  We 
answer — 

1.  That  our  church,  as  such,  in  her  highest  court, 
is  not  well  adapted,  by  the  mode  of  her  organiza- 
tion, to  superintend  and  direct  the  work  of  missions, 
either  faithfully  or  efficiently.  The  members  of  the 
General  Assembly  come  from  great  distances — are 
changed,  for  the  most  part,  every  year — are  not 
familiar  with  the  history  and  policy  of  the  work ; 
and  they  sit  so  short  a  time,  and  are  encumbered 
with  so  much  other  business,  that  they  can  only  hear 
reports  and  adopt  them  on  the  ground  of  their  gene- 
ral confidence  in  their  Boards  of  Trust,  without  any 
possible  opportunity  for  a  careful  and  thorough  exa- 
mination of  their  proceedings.  Yet  the  authority 
and  sanction  of  the  Assembly  stands  between  these 
Boards  and  the  public,  to  shield  them  from  the  watch- 
ful scrutiny  of  others.     We  maintain,  therefore — 

2.  That  Boards,  thus  constituted,  and  acting  under 
so  powerful  a  sanction  of  what  is  so  little  understood, 
are  the  most  irresponsible  bodies  that  could  well  be 
devised.  They  are  responsible  to  the  public  at  large 
only  through  the  General  Assembly,  and  that  body 
gathered  from  all  parts  of  the  land — changing  every 
year — remaining  in  session  only  a  few  days — pressed, 
and  vexed,  and  agitated,  by  a  great  variety  of  other 
business — would,  it  is  presumed,  never  have  been 

3 


26  PLEA    FOR    VOLUNTARY 

selected  by  sagacious  business  men,  as  the  best  con- 
stituted body  for  the  safe-keeping  and  appropriation 
of  large  amounts  of  money,  or  for  the  management 
of  great,  distant,  and  complicated  financial  concerns. 
And  its  supervision  of  such  concerns  must  necessa- 
rily be  not  only  imperfect,  but,  by  the  sanction  which 
it  affords,  it  must  be  a  hindrance  to  the  quick  and 
healthful  action  of  the  public  mind  in  the  detection 
of  abuses.  How  much  more  perfect  and  secure, 
therefore,  is  the  responsibility  of  Boards  appointed 
by  voluntary  societies,  which  stand  solely  upon  their 
good  behaviour,  and  the  well-earned  confidence  of 
the  community,  sustained  by  the  published  reports 
of  their  doings  !  These  bodies  have  no  intermediate 
sanction  to  shield  them  from  the  scrutiny  of  the  pub- 
lic, and  protect  them  in  the  practice  of  abuses  which 
might  otherwise  be  discovered  and  exposed. 

3.  By  conducting  all  her  concerns  ecclesiastically, 
the  judicatories  of  the  church  would  be  loaded  with 
an  amount  of  property  and  of  secular  business,  which 
would  much  endanger  her  spirituality.  The  funds 
of  all  her  seminaries — her  Education  Societies — her 
Home  and  Foreign  Missionary  Societies,  &c,  with 
all  the  augmentation  of  their  amount,  which  the  exi- 
gencies of  this  country  and  the  world  demand,  must 
be  very  great,  and  their  management  a  great  con- 
cern, which  ought  not  to  be,  and  cannot  be,  safely, 
commingled  with  the  spiritual  business  of  the  church. 
The  ministration  of  so  much  property  introduces  into 
church  courts  the  occasions  of  competition,  and  the 
action  of  a  powerful  ecclesiastical  patronage,  which, 
if  it  may  be  wielded  for  good,  may  also  be  perverted 
to  evil.   The  concentration,  therefore,  in  these  courts, 


ASSOCIATIONS,  27 

of  so  much  ecclesiastical  and  pecuniary  power,  is 
both  inexpedient  and  perilous.  It  would  present  an 
amount  of  aliment  to  ambition,  too  great  to  consist 
with  the  single  eye  which  should  pervade  the  church 
of  Christ.  It  was  such  secular  influences,  beginning 
with  her  union  with  the  state,  which  once  com- 
pleted the  corruption  and  downfall  of  the  church ; 
and  the  same  causes,  though  less  powerful  now,  have 
lost  none  of  their  relative  potency  on  our  fallen 
nature. 

The  General  Assembly  is  an  ecclesiastical  judica- 
tory, a  court  for  the  preservation  of  doctrine  and  dis- 
cipline, holding  in  her  hands  the  reputation  and  the 
ecclesiastical  life  of  the  ministry,  and,  through  them, 
the  rights  and  the  peace  of  the  churches.  Suppose 
then,  that,  in  addition  to  this,  it  possesses  the  property 
and  the  pecuniary  patronage  of  the  whole  church, 
and  how  tremendous  must  be  the  power  of  this  judi- 
catory !  Remember,  too,  that  it  would  still  be  an 
elective  body,  composed  every  year  of  new  members, 
liable  to  such  influences  as  cupidity,  ambition  and 
rivalry  might  engender,  and  such  also  as  whisper- 
ings, and  jealousies,  and  alarms,  and  public  argu- 
mentations, and  public  accusations,  and  prejudg- 
ments, with  the  aid  of  secret  correspondence  and 
agencies,  might  produce,  and  who  would  not  fear 
before  such  a  power? 

4.  If  we  consider  also  the  best  means  for  promoting 
the  unembarrassed  and  alert  action  of  the  church,  in 
the  work  of  missions,  we  may  find  occasion  to  distrust 
the  relative  efficiency  of  formal  ecclesiastical  organi- 
zations for  this  purpose.  In  the  beginning  of  these 
enterprises,  it  is  always  difficult  to  secure  a  sufficient 


28  PLEA    FOR    VOLUNTARY 

amount  of  zeal  and  unanimity  in  the  church  to  com- 
mence an  auspicious  effort.  Objections  and  balanced 
action  are  incident  to  extended  ecclesiastical  bodies, 
and  especially  to  the  representative  judicatory  of  so 
many  bodies  as  constitute  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  Presbyterian  church.  This  is  admitted.  And 
do  not  facts  speak  on  this  subject  ?  How  long  were 
the  voluntary  associations  of  our  own  and  other 
churches,  united,  pioneering  their  way  into  heathen 
lands,  undermining  satan's  kingdom  and  casting 
down  imaginations,  before  our  own  church,  as  such, 
in  her  judicatories,  had  zeal  enough  either  to  imitate 
or  to  oppose  ?  And  is  not  the  light  which  she  now 
enjoys,  as  a  church,  a  borrowed  light,  from  orbs  roll- 
ing around  and  athwart  her  path,  which  possibly  had 
left  her  rayless  and  cold  to  the  present  hour,  had  not 
the  zeal  of  voluntary  societies  provoked  her  to  love 
and  good  works  ?  If  there  be,  therefore,  in  church 
organizations,  such  incidental  disqualifications  to 
commence  the  work  of  missions,  can  it  well  be  be- 
lieved that  this  is  heaven's  plan,  or  the  best  plan,  for 
the  prosecution  of  the  work  ?  May  not  and  will  not 
the  difficulties  which  hinder  a  beginning,  hang  -on 
the  wheels,  and  clog  habitually  the  celerity  and  power 
of  their  movement  ?  Look  at  the  condition  of  our 
own  church  at  the  present  time.  Is  it  her  duty,  in  the 
name  and  by  the  authority  of  her  highest  judicatory, 
to  enter  on  the  work  of  missions  ?  But,  behold  the 
paralizing  influence  of  that  very  diversity  of  con- 
scientious opinions,  which  renders  her  united  action, 
in  this  way,  impossible  ;  one  year  a  majority  for  it, 
the  next,  a  majority  against  it,  and  alienation  and  strife 
occasioned  by  these  discrepant  views  !     And  what  is 


ASSOCIATIONS,  29 

the  cogent  argument,  used  by  our  opponents  even 
now,  for  this  mode  of  operation,  but  that  many- 
churches  have,  as  yet,  done  little,  and  will  do  nothing, 
unless  it  be  done  in  this  way  ?  And  how  much  will 
churches,  so  languid,  and  thus  easily  hindered,  be 
likely  to  do  even  in  this  way  ? 

There  is,  it  is  believed,  an  inherent  difficulty  at- 
tendent  on  efforts  to  propagate  the  gospel  by  the 
formal  agency  of  extended  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tions, arising  from  the  vis  inertia  and  discrepancy 
of  opinion  incident  to  distance,  sectional  differences 
and  infrequent  intercourse.  Hence  most  of  the  be- 
nevolent operations  of  the  new  era  are  the  result  of 
voluntary  enterprise.  The  Serampore  mission  of 
the  Baptists,  the  London  Missionary  Society  of  all 
denominations,  whose  hearts  were  touched  with  fire 
from  above,  and  the  English  Church  Missionary 
Society,  so  called,  are  voluntary  associations.  And 
what  church  court,  as  such,  is  the  parent  of  the 
British  or  the  American  Bible  Society,  or  the  Ameri- 
can Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions, 
the  American  Education,  Sunday  School,  Seamen's 
Friend  or  Temperance  societies  7  Let  all  these  lights 
of  modern  times  be  quenched,  excepting  those  which 
church  courts,  as  such,  have  projected,  let  all  the 
showers  now  falling  be  suspended,  excepting  those 
which  are  descending  through  the  agency  of  church 
organizations,  as  such,  and  how  long  would  it  be 
before  the  sun  of  righteousness  would  reach  his 
meridian,  and  the  harvest  of  the  world  be  planted, 
ripened,  and  ready  for  the  sickle  ? 

On  general  principles,  therefore,  as  well  as  from 


30  PLEA    FOR    VOLUNTARY    ASSOCIATIONS. 

all  past  experience,  we  are  constrained  to  believe  that 
the  voluntary,  associated  action  of  evangelical  chris- 
tians, as  far  as  it  is  practicable,  is  much  better  suited 
to  the  object  of  the  world's  conversion,  than  any  form 
of  church  organization  for  this  purpose,  ever  has  been 
or  can  be. 


31 


CHAPTER   II. 


DEFENCE  OF  THE  DECISIONS  OF  THE  GENERAL 
ASSEMBLY  OF  1836.  ATTEMPTED  ORGANIZATION 
OF  A  BOARD  OF  FOREIGN  MISSIONS. 

The  General  Assembly,  convened  in  Pittsburgh, 
May,  1836,  was  probably  the  largest  Assembly  of  the 
kind  ever  convened  in  this  country.  It  was  com- 
posed of  270  members,  and  lacked  only  about  30  of 
being  a  full  representation  of  the  127  Presbyteries 
constituting  the  Presbyterian  church  of  the  United 
States. 

The  occasions  of  this  unusually  large  represen- 
tation are  generally  understood  to  have  been  the 
interest  awakened  in  the  churches  by  the  published 
proceedings  of  the  last  preceding  Assembly,  proposing 
the  organization  of  a  "  General  Assembly1  s  Board 
of  Foreign  Missions"  the  trial  of  the  Rev.  Albert 
Barnes  and  his  suspension  from  all  the  functions  of 
the  Gospel  ministry  by  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia, 
and  the  Appeal  of  the  Rev.  J.  L.  Wilson,  D.  D.,  from 
the  decision  of  the  Synod  of  Cincinnati  in  the  case 
of  Dr.  Beecher.  These  cases  were  spread  before  the 
public  as  in  the  process  of  preparation  for  ultimate 
decision  by  the  General  Assembly  of  1836.  Thus 
were  the  ecclesiastical  lives  of  two  of  our  most  emi- 
nent and  useful  ministers  held  in  suspense,  and  the 
delightful   harmony  which  had  characterized   the 


32  DEFENCE    OF    THE    DECISIONS    OF 

Foreign  Missionary  enterprise  in  former  years,  was 
threatened  with  a  permanent  interruption,  by  the 
measures  which  lmd  been  concerted  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  separate  Board  of  Foreign  Missions, 
to  act  in  the  name,  and  to  represent  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian,  church,  in  this  most 
important  interest.  The  circumstances  were  such 
as  could  not  be  regarded  with  indifference  by  any. 
To  many,  the  attitude  of  our  ecclesiastical  affairs 
appeared  in  a  high  degree  alarming.  A  crisis  was 
approaching,  and  the  churches  in  every  direction 
were  aroused  to  a  sense  of  their  tremendous  respon- 
sibilities, in  regard  to  the  pending  questions. 

The  appeal  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Beecher  having 
been  introduced  to  the  Assembly,  was,  by  the  advice 
of  the  friends  of  the  prosecutor,  withdrawn  ;  there 
being  no  doubt  that  the  Assembly  would  sustain  the 
decision  of  the  court  below,  in  commending  this 
distinguished  and  orthodox  minister  to  the  affection- 
ate confidence  of  all  the  churches.  The  other  two 
cases  of  general  interest  before  named,  were  submit- 
ted to  the  decision  of  the  Assembly.  The  discus- 
sions on  both  of  these  subjects  were  protracted  and 
able,  involving  principles  of  the  highest  importance 
to  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  this  extended  branch 
of  the  church,  of  Christ,  and  to  the  general  cause  of 
Christian  missions.  It  was  not  to  be  expected,  how- 
ever, that  the  decision  of  questions,  arraying  on 
either  side  the  talent,  the  deep  and  conscientious 
preferences,  and  the  great  public  interests  which 
were  involved  in  these  debates,  would  be  satisfactory 
to  all ;  and  it  is  the  privilege  of  the  minority,  if  they 
feel  themselves  oppressed,  or  regard  the  decisions  of 


THE    GENERAL    ASSEMBLY    OF    1836.  33 

the  majority  as  in  any  way  injurious,  to  express  their 
dissatisfaction,  and  to  adopt  such  measures  as  they 
may  hope  will  ultimately  correct  the  evils  to  which 
for  the  present,  as  a  minority,  they  are  bound  to  sub- 
mit. Of  this  privilege,  the  minority  in  these  cases 
have  availed  themselves.  They  have  uttered  their 
complaints  to  the  churches  in  a  variety  of  forms, 
which  we  shall  have  occasion  to  notice.  They  have 
sounded  the  note  of  alarm — have  raised  the  standard 
of  resistance — have  predicted,  and  even  threatened  a 
division  of  the  church — and  have  represented  the 
decisions  of  the  Assembly  in  aspects  so  calculated  to 
bewilder  and  mislead  the  public  mind,  that  it  seems 
incumbent  on  the  friends  of  those  decisions  to  dis- 
abuse them,  by  an  exhibition  of  the  facts  and  rea- 
sonings on  which  they  were  founded.  We  begin 
with  the 

Attempted  Organization  of  a  Board  of  Foreign 
Missions  of  the  General  Assembly. 

That  the  claims  of  this  measure  may  be  fully 
understood,  we  give  the  following  sketch  of  its  his- 
tory. 

In  the  General  Assembly  of  1835,  the  "  Commit- 
tee of  Bills  and  Overtures "  reported  an  overture  in 
relation  to  Foreign  Missions.  On  Saturday  after- 
noon, June  6,  that  overture  was  taken  up,  read,  and 
committed  to  Messrs.  Elliot,  Magie,  Witherspoon, 
Williamson,  and  Simington,  [see  Minutes,  p.  30.] 
On  the  same  afternoon,  the  above  Committee  re- 
ported, recommending  the  adoption  of  the  following 
resolutions :  viz. 


34  DEFENCE    OF    THE    DECISIONS    OF 

1.  That  it  is  the  solemn  conviction  of  this  General 
Assembly  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  owes  it  as  a 
sacred  duty  to  her  glorified  Head,  to  yield  a  far  more  ex- 
emplary obedience,  and  that  in  her  distinctive  character 
as  a  church,  to  the  command  which  he  gave  at  his  ascen- 
sion into  Heaven, — "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature."  It  is  believed  to  be  among 
the  causes  of  the  frowns  of  the  great  Head  of  the  Church, 
which  are  now  resting  on  our  beloved  Zion,  in  the  declen- 
sion of  vital  piety,  and  the  disorders  and  divisions  that 
distract  us,  that  we  have  done  so  little — comparatively 
nothing — in  our  distinctive  character  as  a  Church  of  Christ, 
to  send  the  gospel  to  the  Heathen,  the  Jews,  and  the  Ma- 
homedans.  It  is  regarded  as  of  vital  importance  to  the 
welfare  of  our  church,  that  foreign  as  well  as  domestic 
missions  should  be  more  zealously  prosecuted,  and  more 
liberally  patronized  ;  and  that  as  a  nucleus  of  Foreign 
Missionary  effort,  and  operation,  the  Western  Foreign 
Missionary  Society  should  receive  the  countenance,  as  it 
appears  to  us  to  merit  the  confidence,  of  those  who 
cherish  an  attachment  to  the  doctrines  and  order  of  the 
church  to  which  we  belong. 

2.  Resolved,  that  a  committee  be  appointed  to  confer 
with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh  on  the  subject  of  a  transfer 
of  the  supervision  of  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  So- 
ciety now  under  the  direction  of  that  Synod,  to  ascertain 
the  terms  on  wThich  such  transfer  can  be  made,  to  devise 
and  digest  a  plan  of  conducting  Foreign  Missions  under 
the  direction  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,  and  report  the  whole  to  the  next  General 
Assembly. 

Dr.  Cuyler,  Dr.  Cummins,  Dr.  Hoge,  Mr.  Witherspoon, 
and  Dr.  Edgar  were  appointed  this  committee. 

[See  Minutes,  p.  31.] 

On  the  Monday  following,  June  8,  in  the  after- 
noon, it  being  the  last,  day  of  the  Sessions  of  the 
Assembly,  and  near  the  time  of  its  dissolution,  Mr. 
Latta  (as  we  learn  from  the  reports  of  the  newspa- 
pers at  the  time)  introduced  the  following  resolution, 
which  was  adopted  :  viz. 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  OF  1836.  35 

Resolved,  That  the  committee  appointed  to  confer 
with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  on  the  subject  of  a  transfer 
of  the  supervision  of  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  So- 
ciety to  the  General  Assembly,  be  authorized,  if  they  shall 
approve  of  the  said  transfer,  to  ratify  and  confirm  the 
same  with  the  said  Synod,  and  report  the  same  to  the 
next  General  Assembly.  [See  Minutes  p.  33.] 

Let  it  be  remembered,  that  in  the  morning  of  that 
day,  on  a  test  vote  on  which  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
taken,  there  were  counted  only  ninety-one  votes. 
In  the  afternoon,  the  number  must  have  been  much 
diminished.  Probably  not  more  than  seventy  of  the 
members  were  present,  when  the  above  extraordi- 
nary resolution  was  adopted.  It  appears  from  the 
Minutes,  that  the  whole  number  of  members  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  1835,  who  had  a  right  to  vote, 
was  two  hundred  and  thirty-four  !  The  above  un- 
limited power,  therefore,  was  conferred  on  the  Com- 
mittee, when  less  than  one-third  of  the  members  of 
the  Assembly  were  present ! 

The  next  documentary  notice  which  we  have  of 
this  transaction,  is  contained  in  the  published  account 
of  the  Meeting  of  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg,  at  Meade- 
ville,  October,  1835.     It  is  as  follows  : — 

A  committee,  appointed  for  that  purpose  by  the  last  Ge- 
neral Assembly,  submitted  the  following 

Terms  of  agreement  between  the  Committee  of  the  General 
Assembly  and  the  Synod  of  Pitsburgh,  in  reference  to  the 
transfer  of  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society. 
1.  The  General  Assembly  will  assume  the  supervision 
and   control  of  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society 
from  and  after  the  next  annual  meeting  of  said  Assembly, 
and  will  thereafter  superintend  and  conduct,  by  its  own 
proper  authority,  the  work  of  foreign  missions  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church  by  a  board  especially  appointed  for  that 
purpose,  and  directly  amenable  to  said  Assembly.     And 


36  DEFENCE  OF  THE  DECISIONS  OF 

the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  does  hereby  transfer  to  that  body 
all  its  supervision  and  control  over  the  missions  and  ope- 
rations of  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society,  from 
and  after  the  adoption  of  this  minute,  and  authorizes  and 
directs  said  society  to  perform  every  act  necessary  to 
complete  said  transfer,  when  the  Assembly  shall  have  ap- 
pointed its  board,  it  being  expressly  understood  that  the 
said  Assembly  will  never  hereafter  alienate  or  transfer  to 
any  other  judicatory  or  board  whatever,  the  direct  super- 
vision and  management  of  the  said  missions,  or  those 
which  may  hereafter  be  established  by  the  board  of  the 
General  Assembly. 

2.  The  General  Assembly  shall  annually  choose  ten 
ministers  and  ten  laymen,  as  members  of  the  Board  of 
Foreign  Missions,  whose  term  of  office  shall  be  four 
years,  and  these  forty  ministers  and  forty  laymen  so  ap- 
pointed, shall  constitute  a  board,  to  be  styled  the  Board  of 
Foreign  Missions  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  ;  to  which,  for  the  time  being,  shall  be  en- 
trusted, with  such  directions  and  instructions  as  may  from 
time  to  time  be  given,  the  superintendence  of  the  foreign 
missionary  operations  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  who 
shall  make  annually  to  the  General  Assembly,  a  report 
of  their  proceedings,  and  submit  for  its  approval,  such 
plans  and  measures  as  may  be  deemed  useful  and  neces- 
sary. Until  the  transfer  shall  have  been  completed,  the 
business  shall  be  conducted  by  the  Western  Foreign 
Missionary  Society. 

3.  The  board  of  directors  shall  hold  a  meeting  annually 
at  some  convenient  time  during  the  sessions  of  the  Ge- 
neral Assembly,  at  which  it  shall  appoint  a  president, 
vice  president,  a  corresponding  secretary,  a  treasurer, 
general  agents,  and  an  executive  committee  to  serve  for  the 
ensuing  year.  To  the  board  it  shall  belong  to  receive 
and  decide  upon  all  the  doings  of  the  executive  committee, 
to  receive  and  dispose  of  their  anuual  report,  and  pre- 
sent a  statement  of  their  proceedings  to  the  General  As- 
sembly. It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  board  of  directors  to 
meet  for  the  transaction  of  business  as  often  as  may  be 
expedient ;  due  notice  of  every  special  meeting  being 
seasonably  given  to  every  member  of  the  board.  It  is 
recommended  to  the  board  to  hold  in  different  parts  of 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  OF  1836.  37 

the  church,  at  least  one  public  meeting  annually,  to  pro- 
mote and  diffuse  a  livelier  interest  in  the  Foreign  Mis- 
sionary cause. 

4.  To  the  executive  committee,  consisting  of  not  more 
than  seven  members,  besides  the  corresponding  secretary, 
and  treasurer,  shall  belong  the  duty  of  appointing  all  mis- 
sionaries and  missionary  agents,  except  those  otherwise 
provided  for  ;  of  designating  their  fields  of  labor  ;  receiv- 
ing the  reports  of  the  corresponding  secretary  ;  and  giving 
him  needful  directions  in  reference  to  all  matters  of  busi- 
ness and  correspondence  intrusted  to  him  ;  to  authorise 
all  appropriations  and  expenditures  of  money  ;  and  to 
take  the  particular  direction  and  management  of  foreign 
missionary  work,  subject  to  the  revision  of  the  board  of 
directors.  The  executive  committee  shall  meet  at  least 
once  a  month,  and  oftener  if  necessary  ;  of  whom,  three 
members  meeting  at  the  time  and  place  of  adjournment 
or  special  call,  shall  constitute  a  quorum.  The  com- 
mittee shall  have  power  to  fill  their  own  vacancies,  if  any 
occur  during  a  recess  of  the  board. 

5.  All  property,  houses,  lands,  tenements,  and  per- 
manent funds  belonging  to  the  Board  of  Foreign  Mis- 
sions, to  be  constituted  by  this  agreement,  shall  be  taken 
in  the  name  of  the  trustees  of  the  General  Assembly, 
and  held  in  trust  by  them  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the 
Board  of  Foreign  Missions  for  the  time  being. 

6.  The  seat  of  the  operations  of  the  Board  shall  be 
designated  by  the  General  Assembly. 

Cornelius  C.  Cutler, 
Chairman  of  the  Com.  of  the  Gen.  Assembly. 

These  terms  were  accepted  by  a  vote  of  the  Synod ; 
and  the  Editor  of  the  " Presbyterian"  announced, 
that  "  Of  course  the  General  Assembly  will  pro- 
ceed to  appoint  its  Board  of  Foreign  Missions,  to 
proceed,  according  to  the  above  agreement,  in  the 
work  of  preaching  the  Gospel  to  the  Heathen." 

The  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  at  its  meeting  in  York, 
about  the  same  date,  adopted  the  following  resolu- 
tions :  viz. 

4 


38  DEFENCE  OF  THE  DECISIONS  OF 

Resolved.  1.  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  Synod  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  is  bound 
by  every  consideration  in  faithfulness  to  our  divine  Master 
and  fidelity  to  our  ruined  world,  to  embark  fully  and  im- 
mediately in  the  great  cause  of  Foreign  Missions. 

2.  That  the  organization  by  that  body  of  a  permanent 
board  and  the  appointment  of  suitable  persons  for  this 
work,  should  be  undertaken  without  delay. 

3.  That  the  principal  seat  of  the  operations  of  such  an 
organization  ought  to  be  in  one  of  the  large  Atlantic  cities 
— the  Synod  would  suggest  the  city  of  New-York. 

4.  That  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for 
Foreign  Missions  ought  to  be  requested  to  transfer  to  the 
Board  of  our  Assembly,  when  fully  organized,  all  those 
stations  in  foreign  lands,  at  which  the  majority  of  or- 
dained persons  belong  to  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

5.  That  members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  who  are 
now  in  the  foreign  field,  or  who  may  hereafter  go  into  it, 
ought  in  the  opinion  of  this  Synod,  unless  special  and 
extraordinary  reasons  indicate  a  different  course,  to  main- 
tain a  direct  missionary  relation  to  the  Board  of  their  own 
church  when  organized,  and  they  are  affectionately  ex- 
horted to  the  serious  consideration  of  this  question. 

6.  That  if  the  General  Assembly  should  not,  at  its  next 
meeting  organize  this   great  interest    upon   the    general 
principles  now  exhibited,  this  Synod  will  itself,  at  its  next 
meeting,  in  dependence  upon  God,  fully  enter  upon  the « 
glorious  work. 

Resolved,  That  the  stated  Clerk  be  directed  to  lay  a 
copy  of  the  above  report  before  the  next  General  Assembly. 

The  foregoing  «  Terms  of  Agreement,"  &c.,  and 
also  the  resolutions  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia, 
were  submitted  to  the  General  Assembly  of  1836,  and 
were  committed  to  Drs.  Phillips  and  Skinner,  and 
Messrs.  Scovil,  Dunlap,  and  Ewing.  This  Commit- 
tee reported  as  follows  :  viz. 

That  the  attention  of  the  last  Assembly  was  called  to 
the  subject  of  Foreign  Missions  by  the  following  overture 


THE   GENERAL   ASSEMBLY  OF   1836.  39 

on  p.  31  of  the  Minutes.  [Here  the  report  quotes  the  first 
resolution  which  we  have  before  quoted  from  p.  31  of  the 
Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  1835.] 

The  Assembly  feeling  the  force  of  the  suggestions  con- 
tained in  this  overture,  and  believing  it  to  be  their  most 
important  and  appropriate  work  to  spread  the  gospel 
through  the  world,  adopted  the  overture  in  the  form  of  a 
resolution,  together  with  the  following  viz.  [Here  the  re- 
port quotes  the  second  resolution  from  p.  31,  of  the  Minutes 
of  1835.] 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  proposition  to  confer  with  the 
Synod,  and  to  assume  the  supervision  and  control  of  the 
Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society  originated  in  the 
Assembly.*  At  that  time  the  Western  Foreign  Mission- 
ary Society  was  in  a  prosperous. condition,  enjoying  the 
confidence  and  receiving  the  patronage  of  a  considerable 
number  of  our  churches,  having  in  their  employ  about  20 
missionaries,  and  their  funds  were  unembarrassed.  The 
committee  having  conferred  with  some  of  the  members  of 
that  Society,  and  finding  that  the  proposition  was  favorably 
regarded  by  them,  and  indulging  the  hope  that  an  arrange- 
ment might  be  definitely  made  with  the  Synod,  at  their 
next  stated  meeting,  by  which  the  Assembly  would  be 
prepared  to  enter  on  the  work  at  their  present  sessions, 
brought  the  subject  again  before  the  Assembly,  where  it 
was,  after  mature  deliberation, 

Resolved,  That  the  committee  appointed  to  confer  with 
the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh  on  the  subject  of  a  transfer  of  the 
supervision  of  the  Western  Foreign  Mission  Society  to 
the  General  Assembly  be  authorized  if  they  shall  approve 
of  the  said  transfer,  to  ratify  and  confirm  the  same  with 
the  said  Synod  and  report  the  same  to  the  next  General 
Assembly.  [See  Minutes  for  1835,  p.  33.] 

The  committee,  thus  appointed  and  clothed  with  full 
powers  to  ratify  and  confirm  a  transfer,  submitted  the  terms 
on  which  they   were  willing  to  accept  it  to  the  Synod  of 

*  The  Chairman  of  this  Committee  ought  to  have  known  that  this 
proposition  did  not  originate  in  the  General  Assembly.  The  first  of  the 
resolutions  quoted  in  this  report  was  atranscrpt  of  a  resolution  adopted 
by  the  Pittsburgh  Convention,  as  we  shall  hereafter  show,  and  Dr. 
Phillips,  who  was  a  leading  member  of  that  Convention,  was  aware 
that  its  connexion  with  the  appointment  of  the  Committee  to  confer 
with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  was  at  least  as  intimate  as  that  of  cause 
and  effect. 


40  DEFENCE  OF  THE  DECISIONS  OF 

Pittsburgh  at  their  sessions  last  fall.  The  members  of 
the  committee  not  being  present  at  the  meeting  of  the 
Synod,  and  there  being  no  time  for  farther  correspondence, 
the  Synod  (although  they  would  have  preferred  some  al- 
terations of  the  terms,)  were  precluded  from  proposing 
any  on  the  ground  that  such  alteration  would  vitiate  the 
whole  proceedings,  and  therefore,  acceded  to  the  terms  of 
the  transfer  which  were  proposed  by  the  committee  of  the 
Assembly,  and  solemnly  ratified  the  contract  on  their  part. 
Feeling  themselves  bound  by  the  same,  and  trusting  to  the 
good  faith  of  this  body,  they  have  acted  accordingly,  and 
have  made  no  provision  for  their  Missionaries  now  in  the 
field  for  a  longer  time  than  the  meeting  of  this  Assembly; 
having  informed  them  of  the  transfer  Avhich  had  taken 
place,  and  of  the  new  relation  they  would  sustain  to  this 
body  after  their  present  sessions. 

It  appears  then  to  your  committee  that  the  Assembly 
have  entered  into  a  solemn  compact  with  the  Synod  of 
Pittsburgh,  and  that  there  remains  but  one  righteous  course 
to  pursue,  which  is,  to  adopt  the  report  of  the  committee 
appointed  last  year,  and  to  appoint  a  Foreign  Missionary 
Board..  To  pause  now,  or  to  annul  the  doings  of  the  last 
Assembly  in  this  matter,  would  be  obviously  a  violation  of 
contract,  a  breach  of  trust,  and  a  departure  from  that  good 
faith  which  should  be  sacredly  kept  between  man  and 
man,  and  especially  between  Christian  Societies ;  con- 
duct, which  would  be  utterly  unworthy  of  this  venerable - 
body,  and  highly  injurious  to  the  Western  Foreign  Mis- 
sionary Society. 

The  committee  beg  leave  further  respectfully  to  remind 
the  Assembly,  that  a  large  proportion  of  our  churches, 
(being  Presbyterian  from  conviction  and  preference)  feel 
it  to  be  consistent  not  only,  but  their  solemn  duty  in  the 
sight  of  God,  to  impart  to  others  the  same  good,  and  in  the 
same  form  of  it,  which  they  enjoy  themselves,  and  to  be 
represented  in  heathen  lands  by  Missionaries  of  their  own 
denomination.  They  greatly  prefer  such  an  organization 
as  that  contemplated,  and  which  shall  be  under  the  care  of 
the  Presbyterian  Churches  and  cannot  be  enlisted  so  well 
in  the  great  and  glorious  work  of  sending  the  gospel  to 
the  heathen  under  any  other.  Already,  with  the  blessing 
of  the   Great  Head  of  the  Church,  on  the  efforts  of  the 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  OF  1836.  41 

Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society  in  this  form  of  ope- 
ration, has  a  missionary  spirit  been  awakened  among 
them  to  a  considerable  extent,  and  an  interest  in  the  cause 
of  missions  been  created,  never  before  felt  by  them.  They 
have  furnished  men  for  the  work,  and  are  contributing 
cheerfully  to  their  support  in  the  Foreign  field. 

As  one  great  end  to  be  accomplished  by  all  who  love 
the  Redeemer,  is  to  awaken  and  cherish  a  missionary 
spirit,  and  to  enlist  all  the  churches  in  the  work  of  evan- 
gelizingthe  world;  as  every  leading  Christian  denomina- 
tion in  the  world  has  its  Foreign  Missionary  Board,  and 
has  found  such  distinct  organization  the  most  effective 
method  of  interesting  the  churches  under  their  care  in 
this  great  subject ;  as  such  an  organization  cannot  inter- 
fere with  the  rights  or  operations  of  any  other  similar  or- 
ganization ;  for  the  field  is  the  world,  and  is  wide  enough 
for  all  to  cultivate  ;  as  it  is  neither  desired  nor  intended  to 
dictate  to  any  in  this  matter,  but  simply  to  give  an  oppor- 
tunity of  sending  the  gospel  to  the  heathen  by  their  own 
Missionaries  to  those  who  prefer  this  mode  of  doing  so, 
giving  them  that  liberty  which  they  cheerfully  accord  to 
others  :  Your  committee  cannot  suppose  for  a  moment 
that  this  General  Assembly  will,  in  this  stage  of  the  pro- 
ceedings, refuse  to  consummate  this  arrangement  with  the 
Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  and  thus  prevent  so  many  churches 
under  their  care  from  supporting  their  Missionaries  in 
their  own  way.  For  they  are  unwilling  to  believe  that 
there  can  exist  in  the  nineteenth  century,  a  spirit  of 
bigotry  and  intolerance,  which  would  interfere  with  the 
sacred  liberty  of  conscience,  and  which  would  seem  to 
say  to  all,  unless  you  belong  to  our  party,  you  shall  not 
publish  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation  through  the  crucified 
Redeemer  to  a  dying  world.  From  this  view  of  the  case, 
they  recommend  to  the  Assembly  the  following  resolu- 
tions, viz. 

1 .  Resolved,  That  the  report  of  the  committee  appointed 
by  the  last  Assembly  to  confer  with  the  Synod  of  Pitts- 
burgh on  the  subject  of  a  transfer  of  the  Western  Foreign 
Missionary  Society  to  the  General  Assembly  be  adopted, 
and  that  said  transfer  be  accepted  on  the  terms  of  agree- 
ment therein  contained. 

2.  Resolved,  That  the  Assembly  will  proceed  to  appoint 


42  DEFENCE  OF  THE  DECISIONS  OF 

a  Foreign  Mission  Board,  trie  seat  of  whose  operations 
shall  be  in  the  city  of  New- York. 

(Signed)  W.  W.  Phillips,  Chairman. 

Agreed  to  by  the  committee,  excepting  Dr.  Skinner, 
who  as  the  minority  of  the  Committee  presented  the  fol- 
lowing report,  viz. 

"  Whereas  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for 
Foreign  Missions,  has  been  connected  with  the  Presby- 
terian Church  from  the  year  of  its  incorporation,  by  the 
very  elements  of  its  existence  ;  and  whereas  at  the  pre- 
sent time  the  majority  of  the  whole  of  the  Board  are  Pres- 
byterians ;  and  whereas  it  is  undesirable,  in  conducting 
the  work  of  Foreign  Missions,  that  there  should  be  any 
collision  at  home  or  abroad ;  therefore 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  that  the  Assembly 
should  organize  a  separate  Foreign  Missionary  Insti- 
tution." 

The  question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  report 
of  the  Committee,  a  motion  was  introduced  to  post- 
pone this  report,  for  the  purpose  of  adopting  the 
counter  report  of  Dr.  Skinner.  A  long  debate  en- 
sued, embracing  to  some  extent  the  merits  of  the 
whole  subject ;  at  the  close  of  which,  the  vote  was 
taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  when  it  appeared  that  there 
was  a  majority  of  one  against  the  postponement. 
This  has  been  regarded  by  some  as  exhibiting  "  a 
majority  of  one  in  favor  of  an  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tion." We  are  assured,  however,  that  more  than  one 
who  voted  against  the  postponement,  voted,  on  the 
final  question,  to  reject  the  plan  proposed  by  the 
Committee.  They  voted  against  the  postponement, 
because  they  preferred  to  meet  directly  the  report  of 
the  majority  of  the  Committee,  and  reject  it  at  once. 

On  a  subsequent  day,  the  question  was  resumed, 
and  after  a  renewed  and  animated  debate  of  several 
hours,  the   plan   proposed  by  the  Committee  was 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  OF  1836.  43 

rejected  by  a  vote  of  111  to  106,  exhibiting  a  major- 
ity of  5  against  the  attempted  organization.  Against 
this  decision,  the  following  protest,  penned  by  Dr. 
Miller,  and  signed  by  himself  and  eighty-one  other 
members  of  the  Assembly,  containing  a  summary  of 
the  reasons  which  had  been  previously  urged  in  fa- 
vor of  the  formation  of  the  proposed  Board,  was 
entered  on  the  Minutes  :  viz. 

The  undersigned  would  solemnly  protest  against  the 
decision  of  the  General  Assembly,  whereby  the  report  of 
the  committee  of  the  last  General  Assembly  respecting  the 
Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society  was  rejected  ;  for 
the  following  reasons,  viz. 

1 .  Because  we  consider  the  decision  of  the  Assembly 
in  this  case  as  an  unjustifiable  refusal  to  carry  into  effect 
a  solemn  contract  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh  duly 
ratified  and  confirmed  under  the  authority  of  the  last 
Assembly. 

2.  Because  we  are  impressed  with  the  deepest  con- 
viction that  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  her  ecclesias- 
tical capacity,  is  bound,  in  obedience  to  the  command 
of  her  divine  Head  and  Lord,  to  send  the  glorious  Gos- 
pel, as  far  as  may  be  in  her  power,  to  every  creature  ; 
and  we  consider  the  decision  of  the  Assembly  in  this  case 
as  a  direct  refusal  to  obey  this  command,  and  to  pursue 
one  of  the  great  objects  for  which  the  church  was  founded. 

3.  Because  it  is  our  deliberate  persuasion  that  a  large 
part  of  the  energy,  zeal,  and  resources  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  cannot  be  called  into  action  in  the  missionary 
cause,  without  the  establishment  of  a  missionary  board  by 
the  General  Assembly.  It  is  evident  that  no  other  eccle- 
siastical organization  by  fragments  of  the  church  can  be 
formed,  which  will  unite,  satisfy,  and  call  forth  the  zeal- 
ous co-operation  of  those  in  every  part  of  the  church  who 
wish  for  a  general  Presbyterian  Board. 

4.  Because  while  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  acknow- 
ledge that  they  had  a  board  which  fully  met  all  the  wants 
and  wishes  of  themselves  and  those  who  sympathized 
with  them  ;  they  refused  to   make  such    a  decision    as 


44  DEFENCE  OF  THE  DECISIONS  OF 

would  accord  to  us  a  similar  and  equal  privilege  ;  thereby, 
as  we  conceive,  refusing  that  which  would  have  been 
only  just  and  equal,  and  rejecting  apian  which  would 
have  greatly  extended  the  missionary  spirit,  and  exerted 
a  reflex  beneficial  influence  on  the  churches  thus  indulged 
with  a  board  agreeable  to  their  views. 

5.  Because  to  all  these  considerations,  urged  with  a 
solemnity  and  affection,  the  majority  of  the  Assembly 
were  deaf,  and  have  laid  us  under  the  necessity  of  pro- 
testing against  their  course  ;  and  of  complaining  that  we 
are  denied  a  most  reasonable,  and,  to  us,  most  precious 
privilege,  and  of  lamenting  that  we  are  laid  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  resorting  to  plans  of  ecclesiastical  organization, 
complicated,  inconvenient,  and  much  more  adapted,  on  a 
variety  of  accounts,  to  interfere  with  ecclesiastical  har- 
mony, than  the  proposed  board  could  have  been, 

Pittsburgh,  June  9th,  1 836, 

To  this  protest,  Dr.  Peters,  as  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  appointed  for  that  purpose,  presented  the 
following  answer,  which  was  adopted  by  the  Assem- 
bly, and  entered  on  the  Minutes:  viz. 

In  answer  to  the  protest  of  the  minority  of  the  General 
Assembly  on  the  subject  of  Foreign  Missions,  the  majo- 
rity regard  it  as  due  to  the  churches  and  the  friends  of, 
missions  generally,  to  state  some  of  the  grounds  on  which 
they  have  declined  to  carry  into  effect  the  arrangement 
adopted  and  reported  by  the  committee  of  the  last  Gene- 
ral Assembly,  in  regard  to  the  Western  Foreign  Mission- 
ary Society. 

We  are  of  opinion,. 

1.  That  the  powers  intended  to  be  conferred  upon  the 
above  committee  by  the  last  Assembly,  to  ratify  and  con- 
firm the  transfer  of  the  said  society  from  the  Synod  of 
Pittsburgh  to  the  General  Assembly,  on  such  terms  as  the 
said  committee  might  approve,  are  altogether  unusual  and 
unwarranted ;  and  especially  that  it  was  indiscreet  and 
improper  for  that  Assembly  to  attempt  to  confer  such  un- 
limited powers  for  such  a  purpose,  in  the  existing  state 
of  our  churches,  upon  so  small  a  committee  ;  and  that  too 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  OF  1836.  45 

on  the  last  day  of  the  sessions  of  the  Assembly,  when 
more  that  one  half  of  the  enrolled  members  of  the  body 
had  obtained  leave  of  absence,  and  had  already  returned 
to  their  homes. 

2.  That  it  was  unwarrantable  and  improper  for.  the 
above  committee,  in  the  exercise  of  the  extraordinary 
powers  supposed  to  be  conferred  on  them,  to  incorporate 
in  their  agreement  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh  the  con- 
dition, that  the  supervision  of  the  missions  of  the  Mission- 
ary Board  intended  to  be  organized  should  never  be  alien- 
ated by  the  General  Assembly,  thus  endeavoring  to  bind 
irreversibly  all  future  assemblies  by  the  stipulations  of 
that  committee. 

3.  It  is,  therefore^  our  deep  conviction  that  it  was  the 
duty  of  this  Assembly  to  resist  the  unwarrantable  and  ex- 
traordinary powers  of  the  above  committee,  and  to  reject 
the  unreasonable  condition  of  their  contract  with  the  Sy- 
nod of  Pittsburgh. 

4.  It  is  our  settled  belief  that  the  church  is  one  by  divine 
constitution,  and  that  the  command  is  of  universal  obliga- 
tion ;  "  Let  there  be  no  divisions  among  you,"  and  that 
whatever  advantages  or  disadvantages  may  have  resulted 
from  the  division  of  the  church  into  numerous  denomina- 
tions, with  conflicting  opinions,  it  cannot  be  our  duty,  as 
christians,  to  perpetuate  and  extend  these  divisions  by  in- 
corporating them  in  our  arrangements  to  spread  the  Gos- 
pel in  heathen  lands.  We  cannot,  therefore,  regard  the 
decision  of  the  Assembly  in  this  case,  as  a  refusal  to  obey 
the  command  of  the  Great  Head  of  the  church  to  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature.  That  command,  as  we  un- 
derstand it,  is  not  to  the  Presbyterian  church  in  her  dis- 
tinctive ecclesiastical  capacity,  but  to  the  whole  church,  to 
the  collective  body  of  Christ's  disciples,  of  every  name. 
It  was  that  they  may  the  more  effectually  obey  the  above 
command,  by  uniting  with  christians  of  other  denominations 
in  the  noble  work  of  foreign  missions,  that  the  Assembly 
declined  to  carry  into  effect  the  proposed  organization 
restricted  to  the  Presbyterian  church. 

5.  We  do  not  agree  with  the  protestants  in  the  opinion 
that  the  resources  of  any  part  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
"  cannot  be  called  into  action  in  the  missionary  cause 
without  the  establishment  of  a  missionary  Board  by  the 


46  DEFENCE  OF  THE  DECISIONS  OF 

General  Assembly."  The  history  of  missionary  operations 
in  this  and  in  other  countries  furnishes  ample  evidence 
that  the  energy  and  zeal  of  christians  in  the  spread  of  the 
gospel  are  much  more  effectually  enlisted,  and  their  liber- 
ality greatly  increased  by  more  expanded  organizations, 
which  overstep  the  limits  of  sects,  and  the  bond  of  whose 
union  is  the  one  great  object  of  spreading  the  glorious 
gospel  of  the  blessed  God.  It  is  our  settled  belief  that 
societies  formed  on  these  principles,  and  including  differ- 
ent denominations  of  christians,  are  actually  performing 
as  the  proxies  of  the  church,  in  the  Avork  of  missions,  that 
which  the  church,  on  account  of  her  existing  divisions, 
can  perform  in  no  other  way  so  well.  They  appear  to  us 
to  have  embraced  the  harmonizing  principle  which  is  des- 
tined ultimately  to  reunite  the  churches,  and  make  them 
one,  as  it  was  in  the  beginning  and  will  be  in  the  end. 

6.  While  the  majority  of  the  assembly  acknowledge 
their  unabated  confidence  in  the  American  Board  of  Com- 
missioners for  Foreign  Missions,  as  fully  meeting  our 
wishes,  and  affording  a  safe  and  open  channel  through 
which  all  our  churches  may,  as  consistent  Presbyterians, 
convey  their  contributions  to  the  cause  of  Foreign  Mis- 
sions ;  we  do  not  regard  ourselves  as  having  denied,  by 
the  decision  protested  against,  to  the  minority,  the  privi- 
lege of  conducting  their  missionary  operations  with  entire 
freedom,  on  any  other  plan  which  they  may  prefer.  But 
we  think  it  unreasonable  for  them  to  ask  us  to  form,  and 
to  complain  of  our  not  forming,  by  a  vote  of  the  General 
Assembly,  an  organization,  the  principles  of  which  we  do 
not  approve.  We  do  not  ask  of  them  to  assume  the  re- 
sponsibilities of  the  plan  which  we  prefer,  and  we  can- 
not regard  ourselves  as  chargeable  with  unkindness  or 
injustice,  in  having  refused  to  assume  the  responsibilities 
of  the  plan  which  they  prefer.  If  we  cannot  agree  to 
unite  in  the  same  organization,  for  the  same  purpose,  it 
appears  to  us  manifestly  proper,  that  each  party  should 
bear  the  responsibilities  of  its  own  chosen  plan  of  opera- 
tions ;  and  if  our  brethren  cannot  so  far  commend  their 
principles,  as  to  extend  their  ecclesiastical  organizations 
beyond  those  "  fragments  of  the  church"  of  which  they 
speak,  they  surely  ought  not  to  complain  of  us,  "  if  those 
in  every  part  of  the  church  who  wish  for  a  general  Pres- 


THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  OF  1836.  47 

byterian  Board,"  remain  dissatisfied.  We  would  respect- 
fully ask  whether  they  ought  not  to  charge  their  embar- 
rassment, in  this  respect,  to  the  plan  which  they  have 
adopted,  rather  than  to  those  who  have  chosen,  on  their 
own  responsibility,  in  the  fear  of  God,  to  conduct  their 
missionary  operations  on  other  principles.  If,  therefore, 
the  minority  of  the  Assembly  should  hereafter  judge 
themselves  under  "  the  necessity  of  resorting  to  plans  of 
ecclesiastical  organization"  which  shall  "  interfere  with 
ecclesiastical  harmony,"  the  majority  cannot  regard  them- 
selves as  responsible  for  such  results.  The  settled  belief 
of  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  is,  that  the  operations  of 
the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Mis- 
sions, with  its  numerous  auxiliaries,  both  ecclesiastical 
and  voluntary,  within  the  bounds  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,  present  the  best  arrangement  for  the  promotion  of 
the  cause  of  missions  by  our  churches  ;  and  it  was  to 
prevent  the  ecclesiastical  conflicts  and  divisions  which 
have  resulted  from  the  operations  of  other  similar  organi- 
zations, that  they  have  thought  it  their  duty  to  decline  the 
organization  proposed.  They  have  made  their  decision 
for  the  purpose,  and  with  the  hope  of  securing  and  pro- 
moting the  union  in  the  missionary  work  which  has  so 
happily  existed  in  former  years.  With  these  views  and 
hopes,  they  commend  the  cause  of  missions  and  their 
solemn  and  conscientious  decision  to  the  blessing  of  God, 
and  pray  for  the  peace  of  Jerusalem.- 

The  reader  is  now  in  full  possession  of  the  history 
of  the  proposed  measure  and  its  rejection,  as  far  as  it 
may  be  gathered  from  the  Minutes  of  the  two  Gene- 
ral Assemblies  before  which  it  was  urged. 

The  foregoing  "Answer"  to  Dr.  Miller's  "Protest" 
expresses  the  views  which  we  still  entertain,  and 
which  we  shall  endeavor  to  illustrate  in  the  follow- 
ing pages.  It  is  therefore  commended  to  the  special 
consideration  of  the  reader. 


48 


CHAPTER   III. 

THE    PRINCETON    REVIEWERS    REVIEWED. 

Hasty  publication  of  their  Review.  History  of  the 
debates.  Evidence  that  the  proposal  to  organize 
a  Foreign  Missionary  Board  of  the  General  As- 
sembly originated  in  the  Pittsburgh  Convention. 
The  position  of  Dr.  Miller  illustrated. 

The  "  Association  of  Gentlemen  in  Princeton" 
who  conduct  the  "  Biblical  Repertory  and  Theolo- 
gical Review?  have  devoted  a  large  portion  (sixty- 
one  pages)  of  their  No.  for  July,  1836,  to  a  review 
of  the  doings  of  the  last  General  Assembly.  The 
position  which  several  of  these  gentlemen  occupy, 
as  Professors  in  " the  Theological  Seminary  of  the 
Presbyterian  church,  and  the.  large  number  of  pur 
pils  whom  they  have  educated  with  exemplary  dili- 
gence and  ability,  have  given  to  their  Association  an 
extensive  influence  in  regard  to  our  ecclesiastical 
affairs,  which  on  former  occasions  they  have  not 
been  backward  to  exert.  Whatever,  therefore,  may 
be  the  diversities  of  opinion  as  to  the  propriety  of 
their  voluntarily  associating  for  such  a  purpose,  the 
public  have  not  been  surprised  to  find  them  out  at 
the  present  time,  upon  that  portion  of  the  churcli 
whose  doings  in  the  late  Assembly  have  effectually 
resisted  certain  influences  and  arrangements  which 
seemed  to  these  ll gentlemen"  essential  to  the  triumph 


THE   PRINCETON   REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.       49 

of  an  ecclesiastical  power,  ever  regarded  by  them  as 
identical  with  the  best  interests  of  the  Presbyterian 
body. 

The  topics  on  which  the  writers  of  the  article 
referred  to  have  expended  their  principal  strength, 
are  the  attempted  organization  of  a  "  Foreign  Mis- 
sionary  Board  of  the  General  Assembly"  and  the 
"  Trial  of  Mr.  Barnes." 

To  account  for  some  of  the  errors  into  which 
these  gentlemen  have  fallen,  in  common  with  the 
numerous,  anonymous  and  editorial  writers  before 
referred  to,  and  by  way  of  apology  for  the  same,  we 
premise  the  following  suggestions  : — 

1.  The  haste  with  which  these  brethren  have 
urged  their  opinions  before  the  public  is  truly  re- 
markable. Scarcely  was  the  General  Assembly 
closed,  before  it  was  rumored  that  the  Princeton 
Professors  had  predicted  a  reaction,  and  that  soon 
the  doings  of  the  Assembly  would  be  regarded  with 
universal  censure.  In  a  few  weeks,  one  and  another 
was  heard  to  say  that  the  reaction  had  already  be- 
gun— that  a  "  rod  was  preparing  at  Princeton,"  which 
would  be  felt  by  certain  leaders  of  the  "new  school." 
Soon  again  it  was  announced  that  the  rod  was  per- 
fected— that  the  book  was  in  the  press  ;  and  in  about 
six  weeks  from  the  close  of  the  Assembly,  the  Re- 
view itself  made  its  appearance.  With  it,  the  opin- 
ion became  rife  and  confident,  in  a  certain  circle, 
that  the  churches  would  be  indignant  at  what  had 
been  done,  and  that  the  "  old  school "  would  undoubt- 
edly have  a  large  majority  in  the  next  General  As- 
sembly, and  would  carry,  with  double  strength,  the 
measures  which  were  rejected  in  the  last.     To  all 

5 


50  THE    PRINCETON 

intents  and  purposes,  the  reaction  was  now  com- 
plete— the  balance  was  changed — and  the  minority 
of  the  last  Assembly  had  become  the  majority  of  the 
next. 

2.  Their  haste  to  effect  so  desirable  an  object 
brought  these  Reviewers  before  the  public  under 
every  disadvantage.  The  materials  furnished  them 
at  that  early  day  were  altogether  insufficient  for  their 
purpose.  For  the  knowledge  of  what  had  been  done 
at  the  Assembly,  and  the  reasons  of  its  decisions, 
they  were  obliged  to  depend  upon  such  hasty 
sketches  of  the  debates  as  were  already  before 
the  public :  they  could  not  wait  for  the  more  full 
and  accurate  reports  which  were  in  the  process  of 
publication.  The  crisis  had  come,  and  must  be 
met  with  such  materials  as  were  already  furnished, 
however  imperfect :  hence,  in  summing  up  the  argu- 
ments on  the  subject  of  the  proposed  Board  of  For- 
eign Missions,  they  seem  to  be  under  the  necessity 
of  exhibiting  what  they  supposed  ought  to  have  been 
said,  rather  than  what  was  actually  advanced  by  the 
several  speakers  in  the  General  Assembly.  They 
say,  (page  421,)  "  It  is  not  intended  to  convey  the 
idea,  that  the  arguments  which  follow  were  all  pre- 
sented on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly  precisely  as  they 
are  here  exhibited  ; "  and,  on  the  Trial  of  Mr.  Barnes, 
they  remark,  (page  454,)  "In  the  absence  of  any  sat- 
isfactory account  of  the  trial,  we  must  content  our- 
selves with  a  few  remarks  upon  the  points  of  the 
case,  as  actually  presented  in  the  reports."  Yet  they 
extend  these  feiv  remarks  through  twenty-tivo  pages  ! 
It  is  not  surprising,  that,  with  this  hasty  and  insuffi- 
cient preparation,  they  have  fallen  into  some  mis- 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  51 

takes,  which  the  cause  of  truth  and  of  Christian  cha- 
rity requires  to  be  corrected.  It  is  to  be  regretted, 
however,  that  their  sense  of  duty  to  their  ecclesiasti- 
cal relations,  in  the  important  point  of  influence 
which  they  occupy,  did  not,  in  the  circumstances  of 
the  case,  allow  them  to  delay  their  Review  until  the 
subjects  of  their  strictures  were  more  fully  before 
them.  In  regard  to  some  points,  they  might  have 
been  led  to  different  conclusions ;  and  their  opin- 
ions, changed  or  unchanged,  would  have  had  ulti- 
mately more  weight  with  the  Christian  public  at 
large.  This  infelicity,  however,  cannot  now  be 
changed — scriptum  est  scriptum. 

The  Reviewers  introduce  their  remarks  on  the 
rejected  overture  by  a  brief  statement  of  the  case, 
but  omit  the  documents  which  we  have  quoted, 
and  which  seem  to  us  essential  to  illustrate  its  his- 
tory. They  then  inform  us  that  "  the  principal  speak- 
ers against  the  organization  of  a  Foreign  Missionary* 
Board  by  the  General  Assembly,  were  Mr.  Jessup, 
Dr.  Peters,  Dr.  Skinner,  Dr.  Palmer,  Messrs.  Wisner, 
Brainerd,  Stevens,  Ford,  &c.  &c. ; "  and  proceed  to 
give  "their  leading  arguments."  These  are  pre- 
sented neither  in  the  words  nor  the  order  of  the 
speakers ;  but  arranged  under  eight  counts,  com- 
pressed into  the  space  of  about  three  pages,  and 
exhibited  with  just  as  mueh  strength  as  the  Review- 
ers pleased  to  give  them,* 

*  These  arguments  are  numbered  and  expressed  with  confidence,  as 
if  they  were  a  perfect  epitome  of  the  "  leading  arguments,"  &c.  No 
apology  is  made  for  possible  inaccuraeies  and  deficiencies.  But  in  pre- 
senting the  arguments  of  the  other  side,  the  Reviewers  are  careful,  as 
we  have  before  remarked,  to  notify  their  readers  that  they  are  not  all 
exhibited  precisely  in  the  form  in  which  they  were  presented  on  the 
floor  of  the  Assembly.    This  apology  in  the  latter  case  tends  to  confirm 


52  THE    PRINCETON 

To  balance  the  above,  and  make  it  appear  ihatf 
as  candid  and  impartial  Reviewers,  they  intend  to 
render  equal  justice  to  both  parties,  they  introduce 
the  names  of  Mr.  Nesbit,  Dr.  Hoge,  Dr.  Miller,  Dr. 
Phillips,  Dr.  McElroy,  Dr.  Neill,  Mr.  W.  L.  Breck- 
inridge, Mr.  Ewing,  Mr.  Boyd,  &c.  &c,  as  the  prin- 
cipal speakers  in  favor  of  the  proposed  organization, 
and  present  "  their  most  important  arguments "  em- 
braced in  five  counts,  and  extended  over  thirteen 
pages  of  the  Review  !  These  are  the  arguments  of 
the  Reviewers  themselves,  as  well  as  of  the  gentle- 
men above  named,  and  are  adopted  and  defended  as 
such  in  their  discussions.  They  will  accordingly 
claim  our  attention ;  and  we  propose  to  meet  them 
not  only  by  the  "  leading  arguments."  made  use  of 
by  the  majority  in  the  General  Assembly,  but  with 
such  other  suggestions  as  shall  occur  to  us  in  our 
humble  endeavors  to  set  this  subject  in  its  true  light 
before  the  Christian  public. 

Before  entering  upon  the  consideration  of  these 
arguments,  however,  it  seems  incumbent  on  us  to 
correct  a  misconception  in  regard  to  the  origin  of 
the  proposed  measure,  and  to  examine  the  force  and 
tendency  of  an  excellent  authority  which  the  Review- 
ers have  urged,  with  an  air  of  triumphant  confidence, 
in  its  support. 

To  disprove  the  declaration  of  Dr.  Peters,  on  the 
floor  of  the  Assembly,  that  the  proposed  measure 
originated  in  the  "  Pittsburgh  Convention'1  and  to 
sustain  the  assertion  of  Dr.  Miller,  that  it  did  not 

the  impression  that,  in  the  former,  they  regarded  themselves  as  having 
presented,  with  sufficient  accuracy  and  point,  the  "leading  arguments 
of  the  principal  speakers." 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  53 

thus  originate,  the  Reviewers  assume  the  responsi- 
bility of  the  following  statement,  [page  432,  &c] 

Dr.  Peters  has  said  this  measure  originated  in  the  cele- 
brated Pittsburgh  Convention.  This  is  a  mistake.  It  has 
been  in  consideration  for  years,  and  has  been  the  subject 
of  long  and  anxious  consultation.  It  is  in  vain  to  attempt 
to  cast  odium  on  the  plan.  It  must  be  judged  by  its  own 
merits.  So  far  from  originating  in  the  convention  of  last 
year,  it  is  almost  universally  known  that  the  late  Dr.  Rice 
prepared,  on  his  death  bed,  an  overture  on  this  subject,  to 
be  presented  to  the  General  Assembly,  embracing  every 
essential  feature  of  the  proposed  measure.  It  has  not  ori- 
ginated in  any  narrow  sectarian  policy,  nor  is  it  advocated 
on  sectarian  grounds.  There  is  no  man  in  this  Assembly, 
who  could  find  it  in  his  heart  to  stand  on  the  grave  of 
John  Holt  Rice,  and  pronounce  the  words,  sectarian 
bigot.  The  overture  as  prepared  by  that  good  man, 
breathes  the  very  spirit  of  the  gospel,  and  that  overture 
contains  every  thing  which  the  most  strenuous  advocate 
for  ecclesiastical  organization  desires.* 

"  Project  of  the  Overture  to  he  submitted  to  the  next  Ge- 
neral Assembly. — The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  North  America,  in  organizing  their  form  of  go- 
vernment, and  in  repeated  declarations  made  through  their 
Representatives  in  after  times,  have  solemnly  recognized 
the  importance  of  the  Missionary  cause,  and  their  obliga- 
tion as  Christians,  to  promote  it  by  all  the  means  in  their 
power.  But  these  various  acknowledgments  have  not 
gone  to  the  full  extent  of  the  obligation  imposed  by  the 
Head  of  the  Church,  nor  have  they  produced  exertions  at 
all  corresponding  thereto.  Indeed,  in  the  judgment  of  this 
General  Assembly,  one  primary  and  principal  object  of 
the  institution  of  the  Church  by  Jesus  Christ  was,  not  so 
much  the  salvation  of  individual  Christians — for,  '  he  that 
believeth  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  shall  be  saved' — but  the 
communicating  of  the  blessing  of  the  gospel  to  the  desti- 
tute with  efficiency  of  united  effort.  The  entire  history 
of  the  Christian  Societies  organized  by  the  apostles  affords 

*  As  this  overture  is  short,  we  give  it  here  entire,  as  the  best  possible 
refutation  of  the  charge  in  question. 

5* 


54  THE  PRINCETON 

abundant  evidence  that  they  so  understood  the  design  of 
their  Master.  They  received  from  Him  a  command  to 
'  preach  the  gospel  to  evey  creature' — and  from  the 
churches  planted  by  them,  the  word  of.  the  Lord  was 
'  sounded  out,'  through  all  parts  of  the  civilized  world. 
Nor  did  the  missionary  spirit  of  the  primitive  churches  ex- 
pire, until  they  had  become  secularized  and  corrupted  by 
another  spirit.  And  it  is  the  decided  belief  of  this  Gene- 
ral Assembly  that  a  true  revival  of  religion  in  any  denomi- 
nation of  Christians,  will  generally,  if  not  universally,  be 
marked  by  an  increased  sense  of  obligation  to  execute  the 
commission  which  Christ  gave  to  the  apostles. 

"  The  General  Assembly  would  therefore,  in  the  most 
public  and  solemn  manner,  express  their  shame  and  sor- 
row that  the  church  represented  by  them  has  done,  com- 
paratively, so  little  to  make  known  the  saving  health  o  f 
the  gospel  to  all  nations.  At  the  same  time,  they  would 
express  their  grateful  sense  of  the  goodness  of  the  Lord, 
in  employing  the  instrumentality  of  others  to  send  salva- 
tion to  the  heathen.  Particularly  would  they  rejoice  at  the 
Divine  favour  manifested  to  the  American  Board  of  Com- 
missioners for  Foreign  Missions,  whose  perseverance, 
whose  prudence,  whose  skill,  in  conducting  this  most  im- 
portant interest,  merit  the  praise,  and  excite  the  joy  of  all 
the  churches. 

"  With  an  earnest  desire  therefore,  to  co-operate  with 
this  noble  Institution ;  to  fulfil,  in  some  part  at  least,  their 
own  obligations  ;  and  to  answer  the  just  expectations  of 
the  friends  of  Christ  in  other  denominations,  and  in  other 
countries :  in  obedience  also  to  what  is  believed  to  be  the 
command  of  Christ  ;  be  it  therefore  Resolved, 

"  1.  That  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
is  a  Missionary  Society  ;  the  object  of  which  is  to  aid  in 
the  conversion  of  the  world  ;  and  that  every  member  of 
the  church  is  a  member  for  life  of  said  Society,  and  bound 
in  maintenance  of  his  Christian  character,  to  do  all  in  his 
power  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  object. 

"  2.  That  the  Ministers  of  the  Gospel  in  connection  with 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  are  hereby  most  solemnly  re- 
quired to  present  this  subject  to  the  members  of  their  re- 
spective congregations,  using  every  effort  to  make  them 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  55 

feel  their  obligations,  and  to  induce  them  to  contribute 
according  to  their  ability. 

"  3.  That  a  committee  of be  appointed  from  year 

to  year  by  the  General  Assembly,  to  be  designated,  '  The 
Committee  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United 
States  for  Foreign  Missions,'  to  whose  management  this 
whole  concern  shall  be  confided,  with  directions  to  report 
all  their  transactions  to  the  churches. 

"  4.  The  Committee  shall  have  power  to  appoint  a 
chairman,  corresponding  secretary,  treasurer,  and  other 
necessary  officers. 

"  5.  The  Committee  shall,  as  far  as  the  nature  of  the 
case  will  admit,  be  co-ordinate  with  the  American  Board 
of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions,  and  shall  corre- 
spond and  co-operate  with  that  association,  in  every  pos- 
sible way,  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  great  objects 
which  it  has  in  view. 

"  6.  Inasmuch  as  numbers  belonging  to  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  have  already,  to  some  extent,  acknowledged 
their  obligations,  and  have  been  accustomed,  from  year  to 
year,  to  contribute  to  the  funds  of  the  American  Board, 
and  others  may  hereafter  prefer  to  give  that  destination  to 
their  contributions  ;  and  inasmuch  as  the  General  Assem- 
bly, so  far  from  wishing  to  limit  or  impede  the  operations 
of  that  Board,  is  earnestly  desirous  that  they  may  be  en- 
larged to  the  greatest  possible  extent ;  it  is  therefore  to  be 
distinctly  understood,  that  all  individuals,  Congregations 
or  Missionary  Associations,  are  at  liberty  to  send  their 
contributions  either  to  the  American  Board,  or  to  the  com- 
mittee for  Foreign  Missions  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
as  to  the  contributors  may  appear  most  likely  to  advance 
the  great  object  of  the  conversion  of  the  world. 

"  7.  That  every  church  session  be  authorized  to  receive 
contributions  ;  and  be  directed  to  state  in  their  annual 
reports,  to  the  Presbytery,  distinctly,  the  amount  contri- 
buted by  their  respective  churches  for  Foreign  Missions  : 
and  that  it  be  earnestly  recommended  to  all  church  ses- 
sions, in  hereafter  admitting  new  members  to  the  churches, 
distinctly  to  state  to  candidates  for  admission,  that  if  they 
join  the  church,  they  join  a  community,  the  object  of 
which  is  the  conversion  of  the  heathen  world,  and  to  im- 
press on  their  minds  a  deep  sense  of  their  obligation  as 


50  THE    PRINCETON 

redeemed  sinners,  to  co-operate  in  the  accomplishment  of 
the  great  object  of  Christ's  mission  to  the  world." 

Here,  then,  is  the  evidence  in  full,  that  the  rejected 
measure  did  not  originate  in  the  Pittsburgh  Con- 
vention, nor  "  in  any  narrow  sectarian  policy,"  and 
that  it  was  not  "advocated  on.  sectarian  grounds." 
We  now  offer  the  following  evidence  that  it  did 
thus  originate,  and  that  it  was  advocated  on  the  very 
grounds  which  are  here  denied  by  the  "  Gentlemen 
in  Princeton." 

The  lamented  Dr.  Rice  died  in  September,  1831 : 
In  March  of  the  same  year,  the  above  "overture," 
which  he  is  said  to  have  indited  "  on  his  sick  bed," 
was  forwarded  by  his  amanuensis  to  Professor  Hodge 
of  Princeton,  with  the  request  that  he  and  the  other 
Professors  would  communicate  their  views  con- 
cerning it.  Whether  they  ever  did  so  we  are  not 
informed ;  but  there  is  recorded  evidence  in  abun- 
dance, to  show  that  the  above  overture  did  not  lead 
the  Princeton  Professors  to  their  recent  warm  appro- 
val of  the  measure  rejected  by  the  last  General  As- 
sembly. In  1833,  (two  years  after  they  had  received 
the  overture  of  Dr.  Rice,)  Dr.  Miller  wrote  his  six- 
teen "  Letters  to  Presbyterians"  first  published  in 
the  "Presbyterian"  in  Philadelphia,  and  subse- 
quently collected  into  a  volume.  In  Letter  V.,  after 
having  explained  his  views  at  some  length,  in  regard 
to  Voluntary  Associations  and  Ecclesiastical  Boards, 
he  remarks  as  follows,  (p.  83,) 

"  It  was  from  the  combined  force  of  all  the  foregoing 
considerations,  that  I  was  induced  more  than  a  year  ago, 
to  express  an  opinion  favorable  to  the  formation   of  the 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  57 

"  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society,"  a  society  formed 
within  the  bounds  of  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  under  the 
auspices  of  that  body  ;  having  as  its  formal  patrons,  all 
the  Presbyteries  composing  that  Synod,  together  with 
some  Presbyteries  belonging  to  other  Synods." 

Again,  (p.  85.)  "  The  probability  is,  that  the  Western 
Foreign  Missionary  Society"  will  not  be  placed  under  the 
direction  of  the  General  Assembly,  or  attempt  any  resort 
to  that  body  for  patronage.  It  would  be  unwise  and  un- 
happy to  introduce,  into  the  highest  judicatory  of  the 
church,  another  subject  of  party  jealousy  and  party  con- 
tention. Such  portions  of  the  church  that  feel  friendly  to 
its  existence,  and  willing  to  make  efforts  for  its  support, 
will  of  course,  yield  it  their  patronage,  without  impeach- 
ing the  motives  of  those  who  may  choose  to  act  otherwise, 
and  without  the  least  unfriendly  feeling  towards  other 
institutions." 

These  are  the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Miller  in  1833 ; 
and  to  justify  the  position  which  he  then  held,  he 
does  not  even  allude  to  the  overture  by  Dr.  Rice. 
It  was  not  that,  therefore,  which  led  Dr.  Miller,  in 
1833,  so  pointedly  to  condemn,,  by  anticipation,  the 
very  measure  which,  in  1835  and  1836,  he  approves 
and  defends  in  unmeasured  terms,  and  in  support  of 
which  he  quotes  the  overture  of  Dr.  Rice.  Then  he 
said  a  it  would  be  unwise  and  unhappy"  to  do  this 
very  thing;  he  deprecated  the  measure  as  a  "subject 
of  party  jealousy  and  party  contention":"  now  he 
regards  it  as  both  wise  and  happy !  He  finds  "  every 
essential  feature  of  the  proposed  measure"  in  the 
overture  of  Dr.  Rice ;  and  in  these  views  he  is  sus- 
tained by  the  whole  "  association  of  Gentlemen  in 
Princeton"  There  must  have  been  some  cause  for 
this  wonderful  and  rapid  change  !  What  was  it  ? 
Not  the  overture  of  Dr.  Rice :  that  they  had  long 
before  considered,  and  taken  their  ground,  irrespec- 


58  THE    PRINCETON 

tive  of  it.  Let  us,  then,  examine  the  progress  of  this 
overturning.  Are  not  the  causes  of  it  found  min- 
gled with  the  causes  which  resulted  in  the  "  Pitts- 
burgh Convention?"  In  June,  1834,  a  little  more 
than  a  year  after  the  date  of  Dr.  "  Millefs  Letters" 
the  "  Act  and  Testimony"  was  issued,  calling  that 
convention.  One  matter  of  grievance,  set  forth  in 
that  extraordinary  instrument,  was  the  existence  of 
operations,  within  the  Presbyterian  church,  of  vol- 
untary associations.  In  May,  1835,  the  Convention 
was  assembled,  numbering  forty-seven  ministers  and 
twenty-eight  elders,  representing  forty-eight  Presby- 
teries, or  minorities*  of  Presbyteries.  Among  the 
resolutions  which  they  adopted  were  the  follow- 
inor : — 

Resolved,  That  the  operation  of  any  Missionary  Society, 
within  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  not  responsible  to 
her  judicatories,  is  an  infringement  of  her  rights,  and  in- 
consistent with  her  peace  and  integrity. 

Resolved,  That  the  operation  of  any  Education  Society, 
within  the  bounds  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  for  the 
training  of  her  ministry  independent  of  her  ecclesiastical 
judicatories,  is  a  usurpation  of  the  rights  of  the  Church, 
and  ought  to  be  resisted,  as  tending  to  undermine  her  own 
Education  Board,  and  the  independence  of  her  ministry. 

Resolved,  That  the  committee  on  the  memorial,  be  in- 
structed to  present  to  the  General  Assembly,  the  solemn 
conviction,    of  this    Convention,    that    the    Presbyterian 

*  The  Editor  of  the  New-York  Evangelist,  to  whom  the  Princeton 
Reviewers  acknowledge  themselves  indebted  for  "  the  most  satisfactory 
repor's,"  being  present  at  the  Convention,  remarks  as  follows,  May  30, 
1835. 

"  By  comparing  the  published  pamphlet  containing  the  signers  of  the 
Acf  and  Testimony,  we  judge  that  about  half  of  the  delegates  repre- 
sented minorities — frequently  quite  small  minorities  of  Presbyteries — 
seven  of  t  em  only  a  single  signer  each.  Only  three  Presbyteries  in 
New-York  wsre  represented — two  by  minority  delegates. 

"In  organizing  the  Convention,  Rev.  Ashbel  Green,  D.D.,  wras  ap- 
pointed President,  Rev.  J.  Wither^poon,  Vice  President." 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  59 

Church,  owes  it  as  a  sacred  duty  to  her  glorified  Head, 
to  yield  a  far  more  exemplary  obedience,  and  that  in  her 
distinctive  character  as  a  church,  to  the  command  which 
he  gave  at  his  ascension  into  heaven,  "  Go  ye  into  all  the 
world  and  preach  the  gospel,  to  every  creature."  It  is 
believed  to  be  among  the  causes  of  the  frowns  of  the 
great  Head  of  the  Church,  which  are  now  resting  on  our 
beloved  Zion,  in  the  declension  of  vital  piety  and  the  dis- 
orders, and  divisions,  that  distract  us  that  we  have  done 
so  little — comparatively  nothing — in  our  distinctive  charac- 
ter as  a  church  of  Christ,  to  send  the  gospel  to  the  Heathen, 
the  Jews  and  the  Mahommedans.  It  is  regarded  as  of 
vital  importance,  to  the  welfare  of  our  church,  that  foreign 
as  well  as  domestic  missions,  should  be  more  zealously 
prosecuted  and  more  liberally  patronized,  and  that,  as  a 
nucleus  of  foreign  missionary  effort,  and  operation,  "  the 
Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society,  should  receive  the 
countenance,  as  it  appears  to  us  to  merit  the  confidence, 
of  those  who  cherish  an  attachment,  to  the  doctrine  and 
order  of  the  church,  to  which  we  belong."  After  some 
discussion,  the  above  document  was  committed  to  the 
Rev.  Messrs.  Blythe,  Cuyler,  and  Witherspoon,  with  in- 
structions to  present  it  to  the  notice  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, in  whatever  way  was  deemed  best. 

The  following  passages,  copied  from  the  "  Memo- 
rial of  the  Pittsburgh  Convention"  explains  the 
first  of  the  above  resolutions,  and  have  an  indirect 
bearing  in  favor  of  the  second  and  third : — 

4.  Our  fourth  item  of  grievance  is  :  The  existence  and 
operation,  within  our  church  of  a  Missionary  Society  in  no 
sense  amenable  to  her  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.    Again — 

This  institution  operates  largely  in  our  congregations  ; 

first,  by  sweeping  away,  from  our  own  Board  the  funds 

which,  by  the  laws  of  all  social  order,  ought  to  come  into 

the  treasury  of  the  body  to  which  its  possessors  belong. 

Again — 

We  are  unspeakably  distressed  to  be  constrained  to 
view  this  as  a  part  of  a  great  system  of  operations 
whose  tendency  is  to  subvert  the  foundations  of  our 
Zion.     The  evidence  of  such  a  system  forces  itself  upon 


60  THE    PRINCETON 

us.  We  cannot  shut  our  eyes  against  it  if  we  would,  and 
we  would  not  if  we  could.  Painful  as  the  vision  is,  we 
are  determined  to  behold  it  steadfastly  ;  and  we  crave  the 
attention  of  this  venerable  body  to  the  same.  And  again, 
We  pray  this  General  Assembly  to  sustain  her  own  Board 
of  Missions,  by  solemnly  enjoining  upon  all  the  churches 
to  contribute  to  its  funds,  and  by  rescinding  the  resolutions 
formerly  passed,  which  recommended  to  their  patronage 
"  The  Home  Missionary  Society." 

The  memorial  containing  the  above  "  item  of 
grievance"  was  brought  before  the  Assembly  of 
1835,  and,  according  to  the  prediction  of  Dr.  Miller 
in  1833,  became  the  subject  of  much  "party  jea- 
lousy and  party  contention."  A  majority  of  that 
Assembly,  through  the  special  efforts  which  had 
been  used  during  the  year  for.  that  purpose,  were 
friendly  to  the  principles  and  measures  of  the  "  Act 
and  Testimony  Convention."  Its  moderator  (Dr. 
Phillips)  had  been  a  leading  member  of  the  Conven- 
tion— the  majority  of  all  important  committees  were 
of  the  same  class — and,  in  most  of  its  acts,  the  As- 
sembly yielded  to  the  prescriptions  and  suggestions 
of  the  Convention,  as  contained  in  their  "  Memorial." 
Among  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Assembly,  in 
obedience  to  these  suggestions,  was  the  following — 
modifying,  it  is  true,  in  some  degree,  the  demands  of 
the  Convention,  but  sustaining  substantially  their 
principles  and  reasonings,  and  pushing  them  as  far 
as  expediency  at  that  time,  in  their  opinion,  would 
allow. 

5.  Resolved,  That  while  this  General  Assembly  fully 
appreciate,  and  deeply  deplore  the  many  painful  evils 
which  result  from  the  present  division  in  our  church,  in 
respect  to  the  method  of  conducting  domestic  missions, 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  61 

and  the  education  of  beneficiary  candidates  for  the  minis- 
try ;  they  are  persuaded  that  it  is  not  expedient  to  attempt 
to  prohibit,  within  our  bounds,  the  operation  of  the  "  Home 
Missionary  Society,"  or  of  the  "  Presbyterian  Education 
Society,"  or  any  other  voluntary  association  not  subject 
to  our  control.  Such  an  attempt  would  tend,  it  is  be- 
lieved., to  increase,  rather  than  to  diminish  the  existing 
evils. 

[See  Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly  1835,  p.  29.] 

Thus  far  it  appears  that  the  majority  of  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly  of  1835  sustained,  in  all  important 
particulars,  the  views  of  the  u  Pittsburgh  Conven- 
tion" in  regard  to  domestic  missions  and  voluntary 
societies  generally.  Nor  was  this  sufficient  to  satisfy 
the  controlling  power  in  that  body.  The  "  Act  and 
Testimony  Convention"  it  will  be  recollected,  had 
committed  the  subject  of  Foreign  Missions  to  three 
of  their  number  —  "Messrs.  Blythe,  Cuyler,  and 
Witherspoon,  with  instructions  to  present  it  to  the 
notice  of  the  General  Assembly,  in  whatever  way 
was  deemed  best."  These  gentlemen  were  faithful 
to  their  instructions,  and  presented  this  subject  in 
the  form  of  an  overture,  which  was  read  and  com- 
mitted, the  Vice  President  of  the  Convention  (Mr. 
Witherspoon)  being  one  of  the  Committee.  From 
this  Committee  a  report  was  received,  recommend- 
ing the  resolutions  which  were  adopted  by  the  As- 
sembly of  1S35,  and  which  we  have  before  quoted, 
page  34.  The  first  of  these  resolutions  recom- 
mends the  "  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Soci- 
ety" as  a  "  nucleus  of  foreign  missionary  effort  and 
operation ; "  and  the  reader  will  perceive,  by  com- 
paring them,  that  it  is  identical  with  the  third  of  the 
resolutions,  which  we  have  before  quoted,  (page  58,)  as 

6 


62  THE    PRINCETON 

adopted  by  the  "  Pittsburgh  Convention" — except- 
ing that  what  was  in  the  oner  "the  solemn  convic- 
tion of  this  Convention"  has  become,  in  the  other? 
"  the  solemn  conviction  of  this  General  Assembly  I" 
In  all  other  respects,  the  latter  is  a  transcript  of 
the  former,  in  the  very  words  of  the  pattern  pre- 
scribed by  the  Convention.  Here  too,  again,  we 
have  Dr.  Cuyler  and  Mr.  Witherspoon  (the  only 
members  of  the  Committee  of  the  Convention,  on 
this  subject,  who  were  also  members  of  the  Assem- 
bly) on  the  Committee  of  the  Assembly,  "  to  confer 
with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,"  &c. 

Mr.  Latta,  also,  who  introduced  the  resolution  on 
the  last  day  of  the  Sessions  of  the  Assembly,  to  con- 
fer plenary  power  on  the  above  Committee,  was  a 
signer  of  the  " Act  and  Testimony"  and  a  member 
of  the  Pittsburgh  Convention. 

And  it  is  understood,  that  the  resolutions  adopted 
by  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  on  the  same  subject, 
were  introduced  to  that  body  by  the  Rev.  R.  J.  Breck- 
inridge, the  reputed  author  of  the  u  Act  and  Testis 
mom/ ,  and  a  zealous  promoter  of  the  disorganizing 
measures  of  the  "  Pittsburgh  Convention." 

Next,  in  the  order  of  events  on  this  subject,  occur 
the  doings  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1836.  Here, 
too,  we  find,  in  the  Moderator's  chair,  a  member  of 
the  "  Pittsburgh  Convention" — and  more  than  a 
member.  The  Rev.  J.  Witherspoon  was  the  Vice 
President  of  that  Convention,  and  is  understood  to 
have  been  the  principal  writer  of  the  a Memorial" 
presented,  in  its  name,  to  the  Assembly  of  1835.  It 
is  well  known,  that  the  circumstance  which  eleva- 
ted  this  gentleman  to  the  chair  of  an  Assembly, 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  63 

most  of  whose  decisions  were  the  reverse  of  his  own 
views  and  wishes,  was  the  Providential  detention,  on 
their  journey,  of  a  number  of  members,  until  after  the 
election  was  made,  whose  votes,  had  they  been  pre- 
sent, would  have  given  a  majority  to  the  opposing 
candidate.  This  Providential  hindrance  of  the  voice 
of  the  majority,  in  the  choice  of  a  Moderator,  clothed 
the  Vice  President  of  the  u  Act  and  Testimony  Con- 
vention" with  the  power  of  appointing  the  Commit- 
tees of  the  Assembly.  Hence,  the  majority  of  each 
of  the  important  Committees  of  this  Assembly,  as 
well  as  of  that  of  1835,  were  either  members,  or 
known  and  pledged  friends  of  the  principles  and 
measures  of  that  Convention.  Such  were  all  of  the 
Committee  on  the  proposed  transfer,  excepting  Dr. 
Skinner,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  dissented  from  their 
report. 

Sustained  by  the  foregoing  evidence,  we  now  af- 
firm, without  the  fear  of  contradiction,  that  the  pro- 
posal to  transfer  the  supervision  of  the  Western  For- 
eign Missionary  Society  to  the  General  Assembly  did 
not  only  originate  with  the  "  Pittsburgh  Convention," 
but  that,  in  every  step  of  the  proceedings  concerning 
it,  it  was  principally  supported  and  urged  by  the 
members  and  friends  of  that  Convention,  until  it  was 
finally  rejected  by  a  vote  of  the  General  Assembly 
of  1836— every  member  of  the  Assembly,  who  had 
been  a  member  of  the  Convention,  or  a  signer  of  the 
u Act  and  Testimony"  voting  against  the  rejection. 


64 


CHAPTER  IV. 


THE  PRINCETON  REVIEWERS  REVIEWED. 

Further  Evidence  that  the  proposal  to  organize  a 
Foreign  Missionary  Board  of  the  General  As- 
sembly originated  in  the  Pittsburgh  Convention. 
The  overture  of  Dr.  Rice  explained. 

In  the  affirmation  which  closed  the  preceding 
chapter,  we  more  than  sustain  the  declaration  of 
Dr.  Peters  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly.  His  re- 
marks are  correctly  reported  in  the  "  New  -York 
Observer"  (July  23;  1836,)  as  follows:  viz.,  "It  is 
said  that  the  proposal  of  such  a  transfer  originated  in 
the  Assembly.  But  this  was  not  the  fact.  No,  sir  : 
it  originated  in  the  Pittsburgh  Convention — a  very- 
different  body  from  this  Assembly,  as  to  its  origin,  its 
constitution,  and  its  ends.  That  Convention  was  a 
Voluntary  Association,  formed  by  pre-concerted  ar- 
rangement, and  for  the  express  purpose  of  control- 
ling the  General  Assembly  ;  and  for  one  year  it  did 
control  it.  I  disclaim  the  powers  of  that  Conven- 
tion, and  cannot  consent  to  yield  the  government  of 
this  Assembly  to  its  suggestions  and  arrangements." 

Dr.  Miller  denied  the  correctness  of  the  above 
representation,  and  asserted,  in  reply  to  Dr.  Peters, 
as  reported  in  the  same  paper- — "  I  can  personally 
testify,  that  this  very  proposal,  which  is  now  the 


THE   P  PRINCETON  REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.       65 

subject  of  discussion,  was  insisted  on,  not  only  for 
months,  but  for  more  than  a  year  before  that  Con- 
vention held  its  sittings.  It  was  matter  of  familiar 
conference  for  many  months  before  that  time." 

All  this  may  be  true.  The  causes  which  led  to 
the  calling  of  the  "Pittsburgh  Convention"  were 
many.  A  principal  one,  there  is  much  reason  to 
believe,  was  a  desire  to  promote  the  organization  of 
a  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  of  the  General  As- 
sembly. It  is  therefore  doubtless  true,  that  for  this 
purpose  the  "proposal"  to  make  the  "  Western  For- 
eign Missionary  Society  a  nucleus  of  foreign  mis- 
sionary effort  and  operation"  was  " insisted  on"  for 
many  months  before  the  sitting  of  the  Convention. 
But,  will  Dr.  Miller  tell  us  who  insisted  on  it?  It 
was  not  himself;  for  he,  as  we  have  seen,  in  1833, 
only  one  year  before  the  issuing  of  the  "  Act  and 
Testimony"  was  pointedly  and  unequivocally  op- 
posed to  such  a  proposal,  for  such  a  purpose.  He 
regarded  it  as  a  "  subject  of  party  jealousy  and  party 
contention"  which  it  would  be  u  unwise  and  un- 
happy" to  introduce  into  the  highest  judicatory  of 
the  church.  And  it  could  not  have  been  that ll  large 
proportion"  of  the  Assembly  of  1835,  who,  Dr.  Mil- 
ler assures  us,  "  were  opposed  to  the  doings  of  the 
Convention."  They  certainly  could  never  have  in- 
sisted on  the  very  measure  which  was  a  principal 
object  of  those  " doings"  Nor  could  it  have  been 
the  "Association  of  Gentlemen  in  Princeton"  in 
their  united  counsel ;  for  it  is  well  remembered  that 
these  gentlemen,  soon  after  the  publication  of  the 
"Act  and  Testimony"  in  1834,  animadverted  with 
great  severity  in  their  Quarterly  upon  the  principles 

6* 


66  THE    PRINCETON 

assumed  in  that  paper,  as  subversive  of  Presbyterial 
order,  and  upon  the  Convention  proposed,  as  irregu- 
lar and  uncalled  for.  They,  therefore,  could  not 
have  " insisted"  at  that  time,  on  the  identical  " pro- 
posal," for  which  perhaps  principally  the  Convention 
was  invited,  and  which  had  been  so  pointedly  con- 
demned by  one  of  their  own  number,  as  "  unwise 
and  unhappy." 

Who,  then,  did  insist  upon  this  measure,  and 
make  it  "matter  of  familiar  conference,  for  more 
than  a  year  before  that  Convention  held  its  sittings"  ? 
It  must  have  been  the  men  who  prepared  the  "  Act 
and  Testimony"  and  who  invited  the  "  Pittsburgh 
Convention"  for  the  purpose,  among  other  things,  of 
promoting  this  very  measure,  then  so  unequivocally 
condemned,  and  now  as  warmly  approved  by  the 
"  Gentlemen  in  Princeton? 

But  it  may  be  imagined  that  the  overture  of  Dr. 
Rice  suggested  this  measure  to  the  friends  and  mem- 
bers of  the  "  Pittsburgh  Convention"  and  that 
therefore  it  may  be  considered  as  having  originated 
with  him  rather  than  with  them.  This  may  have 
been  the  ground  of  the  following  assertion  of  the 
Princeton  Review,  as  before  quoted :  viz..  "  So  far 
from  originating  in  the  Convention  of  last  year,  it 
is  almost  universally  known  that  the  late  Dr.  Rice 
prepared,  on  his  death-bed,  an  overture  on  this  sub- 
ject,  to  be  presented  to  the  General  Assembly,  embra- 
cing every  essential  feature  of  the  proposed  measure." 
Yet  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  this  over- 
ture suggested  the  measure  adopted  by  the  Conven- 
tion, and  proposed  to  the  Assembly.  And  it  could 
not  have  been  the  fact ;    for,  in  all  the  published 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  67 

proceedings  of  the  Convention,  we  do  not  find 
that  overture  even  alluded  to.  Had  it  been  possi- 
ble for  that  Convention  to  trace  the  origin  of  their 
proposal  on  this  subject  to  Dr.  JOHN  H.  RICE, 
it  cannot  be  doubted  that  they  would  have  been  care- 
ful to  render  "  honor  to  whom  honor  is  due,"  by 
quoting  the  name  and  the  suggestion  of  one  whose 
character  and  influence,  in  their  favor,  would  have 
inspired  universal  confidence  in  their  proceedings. 
The  conclusion,  therefore,  is  unavoidable,  that  they 
did  not  approve  of  the  suggestions  of  Dr.  Rice.  His 
overture  was  in  the  hands  of  their  violent  opposers, 
(at  that  time,)  the  "  Gentlemen  in  Princeton"  and 
they  were  willing  it  should  remain  there.* 

The  overture  of  Dr.  Rice  is  far  from  sanctioning 
the  measuies  of  the  Convention  on  this  subject,  or  of 
the  committee  of  the  Assembly  of  1835.  It  maintains 
positions  and  breathes  a  spirit  which  could  not  have 
led  to  such  results.  It  does  not  intimate  that  "  the 
operations  of  any  Missionary  Society,  within  the 
Presbyterian  Church  and  not  responsible  (directly) 
to  her  judicatories,  is  an  infringement  of  her  rights 
and  inconsistent  with  her  peace  and  integrity."  It 
does  not  intimate  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  "  in  her  distinctive  character  as  a 
church"  to  conduct  the  work  of  Foreign  Missions, 
separate  from  all  other  denominations.  It  does  not 
intimate  that  the  funds  of  the  members  of  the  church, 

*  They  well  understood  it  condemned  their  exclusiveness.  Dr.  Miller 
and  his  associates  in  Princeton,  being  recent  converts  to  the  views  of  the 
Pittsburgh  Convention,  stem  not  to  be  fully  aware  of  the  wide  discre- 
pancy between  the  plan  which  they  now  approve  and  the  "  overture" 
which  they  have  incautiously  adduced  in  its  support.  Had  they  under- 
stood this,  they  too  would  have  left  the  overture  to  sleep  in  silence,  aa 
did  the  members  of  that  Convention,  when  they  originated  the  measures, 
which  these  gentlemen  have  recently  so  warmly  espoused. 


68  THE    PRINCETON 

"  by  the  laws  of  all  social  order,  ought  to  come  into 
the  treasury  of  the  body  to  which  its  possessors  be- 
long." It  does  not  intimate  that  the  operations  of  the 
Home  Missionary  Society  are  "  a  part  of  a  great  sys- 
tem of  operations,  whose  tendency  is  to  subvert  the 
foundations  of  our  Zion."  It  does  not  intimate  a 
wish  for  "  the  General  Assembly  to  sustain  her  own 
Board  of  Missions  by  solemnly  enjoining  upon  all  the 
churches  to  contribute  to  its  funds,  and  by  rescind- 
ing the  resolutions  formerly  passed,  which  recom- 
mends to  their  patronage  the  Home  Missionary  So- 
ciety" Yet  each  of  these  positions  is  asserted  by  the 
"  Pittsburgh  Convention"  in  the  documents  which 
we  have  already  quoted,  and  a  part  of  the  same  are 
affirmed,  and  the  remainder  implied,  in  the  resolu- 
tions of  the  Assembly  of  1835,  in  the  agreement  of 
the  committee  of  that  Assembly  with  the  Synod  of 
Pittsburgh,  and  in  the  report  of  the  committee  of  the 
Assembly  of  1836  on  the  same  subject. 

On  the  contrary  the  overture  of  Dr.  Rice,  though 
it  does  recommend  the  annual  appointment  of  a  com-' 
mittee  by  the  General  Assembly,  "  with  directions  to 
report  all  their  transactions  to  the  churches,"  makes  no 
provision  for  a  permanent  Board  of  Foreign  Missions 
exclusively  responsible  to  the  Assembly.  We  unite 
with  the  Princeton  Reviewers,  in  affirming  that  "the 
overture,  as  prepared  by  that  good  man,  breathes  the 
very  spirit  of  the  gospel."  It  asserts  that  a  "  primary 
and  principal  object  of  the  institution  of  the  church, 
(the  whole  church  including  all  evangelical  denomi- 
nations,) by  Jesus  Christ,  was  the  communicating  of 
the  blessings  of  the  gospel  to  the  destitute  with  the 
efficiency  of  united  effort."    While  it  recognizes,  with 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  69 

shame  and  sorrow,  that  the  churches  represented  in 
the  General  Assembly  "  have  done,  comparatively,  so 
little,"  in  this  cause,  it  expresses  the  most  "  grateful 
sense  of  the  goodness  of  the  Lord  in  employing  the 
instrumentality  of  others  to  send  salvation  to  the 
heathen."  "  Particularly"  does  it  "rejoice  in  the  Di- 
vine favor  manifested  to  the  American  Board  of 
Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions,  whose  perse- 
verance, whose  prudence,  whose  skill,  in  conducting 
this  most  important  interest,  merit  the  praise  and 
excite  the  joy  of  all  the  churches."  It  is  therefore 
declared  to  be  the  object  of  the  overture  and  the 
"  earnest  desire"  of  its  author,  "  to  co-operate  with 
this  noble  institution.1''  Hence  it  provides  that  "  the 
Committee  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  shall,  as  far 
as  the  nature  of  the  case  will  admit,  be  co-ordinate 
with  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for 
Foreign  Missions,  and  shall  correspond  and  co-ope- 
rate with  that  Association,  in  every  possible  way,  for 
the  accomplishment  of  the  great  objects  which  it  has 
in  view."  Again,  "  earnestly  desirous  that  the  ope- 
ration of  that  Board  may  be  enlarged,  to  the  greatest 
joossible  extent"  it  provides  "  that  all  individuals, 
congregations,  or  missionary  associations  are  at 
liberty  to  send  their  contributions  either  to  the  Ame- 
rican Board,  or  to  the  committee  for  Foreign  Missions 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  as  to  the  contributors 
may  appear  most  likely  to  advance  the  great  object 
of  the  conversion  of  the  world."  These  and  other 
accordant  provisions,  in  the  "  overture"  of  Dr.  Rice, 
exhibit  the  catholic  spirit  and  the  liberal  views  of  that 
lt  good  man,"  who,  being  dead,  yet  speaketh  to  all 
the  churches.     Is  there  any  thing  in  the  spirit  or  the 


70  THE    PRINCETON 

declarations  of  this  "  overture/'  which,  by  any  possi- 
bility, can  be  made  to  accord  with  the  resolution  of 
the  originators  of  the  measure  rejected  by  the  last 
Assembly,  "that  the  operation  of  any  Missionary  So- 
ciety, within  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  not  re- 
sponsible to  her  judicatories,  is  an  infringement  of  her 
right,  and  inconsistent  with  her  peace  and  integrity?" 
On  the  contrary,  it  expresses  the  earnest  desire  that 
such  operations  "  may  he  enlarged  to  the  greatest 
possible  extent" 

How  then  could  the  "  Gentlemen  in  Princeton," 
with  all  these  facts  in  their  possession,  regard  the 
"  overture"  by  Dr.  Rice,  as  "  embracing  every  essen- 
tial feature  of  the  proposed  measure  ?"  How  could 
they  affirm  that  "  that  overture  contains  every  thing 
which  the  most  strenuous  advocate  for  ecclesiastical 
organization  desires  V  It  is  presumed  that  they 
will  never  make  these  declarations  again,  and  that 
hereafter  should  they  ever  allow  themselves  to  write 
with  the  haste  and  the  carelessness,  as  to  matters  of 
fact,  which  are  manifested  in  their  review  of  the- 
"  General  Assembly  of  1836,"  they  will  confine  them- 
selves to  topics,  concerning  which  there  exists  no 
documentary  evidence.  For  we  have  yet  other  proof 
that  we  have  not  mistaken  the  spirit  and  meaning  of 
Dr.  Rice  in  the  overture  under  consideration. 

We  quote  the  following  from  the   New  York  Ob- 
server of  July  9,  1828,  headed 

"  The  New  England  Churches." 
"  Dr.  Beeche^s  Occasional  Sermons." 

"  In  a  review  of  Dr.    Beecher's   Occasional   Sermons, 
which  we  find  in  the  "  Literary  and  Evangelical  Magazine," 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED  7] 

edited  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Rice  of  Virginia,  the  writer,  (who 
we  presume  is  the  worthy  editor  himself,)  takes  occasion 
to  glance  at  the  doctrinal  views  of  the  New  England 
churches  and  the  policy  of  co-operating  with  them  in  the 
great  work  of  evangelizing  the  world.  He  recommends 
the  book  to  his  readers  for  the  following  reasons  : — 

"  1 .  Because  it  contains  the  views  of  the  orthodox  churches 
in  New  England  on  various  and  important  points  of  doctrine. 
As  these  churches  are  represented  in  the  highest  judica- 
tory of  our  church,  and  are  also  united  with  us,  in  their 
efforts  to  promote  the  great  cause  of  Missions,  both  at 
home  and  abroad,  we  think  it  important  that  their  views 
should  be  fully  known  in  every  part  of  our  church. 

The  members  of  our  church  certainly  ought  to  know  the 
religious  character  of  those  with  whom  they  unite  in  the 
sacred  and  benevolent  work,  of  propagating  the  Gospel  of 
Christ  in  heathen  nations  :  and  to  know  their  character, 
we  must  know  their  creed. 

We  wish  therefore  that  their  sentiments  may  be  more 
generally  known,  and  this — instead  of  destroying,  we  are 
confident  will  cement  and  strengthen  the  union  which 
happily  subsists  between  our  church  and  the  orthodox  of 
New  England. 

This  union  appears  to  us  important,  not  only  to  them, 
but  to  the  prosperity  and  enlargement  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  It  tends  to  cool  the  zeal  of  bigotry,  to  exclude 
the  spirit  of  sectarianism  and  to  promote  liberal  (we  use 
the  word  in  its  proper,  not  its  popular  sense)  Christianity. 

We  do  not  wish  our  church  to  become  sectarian,  because 
it  has  the  best  system  of  government  and  discipline  :  we 
do  not  wish  it  to  separate  from  others  who  hold  "  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints"  in  the  holy  enterprise  of 
preaching  the  gospel  among  all  nations.  We  do  not  wish 
to  see  this  eause  tarnished,  or  its  progress  retarded,  by 
the  paralyzing  efforts  of  sectarianism. 

The  influence  of  correspondence  and  of  united  exertion 
to  promote  the  cause  of  Christ,  between  our  churches,  is 
a  most  salutary  and  important  influence.  We  hope,  there- 
fore, it  will  be  increased  and  extended  till  its  benign  power 
is  felt  in  every  dark  corner  of  the  earth. 

From  the  history  of  other  churches  we  may  learn  what 


72  THE    PRINCETON 

would  be  the  effects  of  a  separation  from  Evangelical 
Associations  in  the  cause  of  benevolent  enterprise. 

Should  the  Presbyterian  Church  withdraw  from  others 
in  this  cause,  we  venture  to  predict  her  future  history. 
Instead  of  looking  abroad  with  compassion  on  the  world 
lying  in  wickedness  before  her — instead  of  carrying  the 
standard  of  the  cross  and  planting  it  in  the  heart  of  Satan's 
empire,  her  eyes  will  be  fastened  and  riveted  to  the  walls 
and  her  energies  will  be  wasted  in  defending  the  intrench- 
ments  which  surround  her  own  little  encampment.  Her 
sons,  instead  of  building  up  and  beautifying  the  temple  of 
the  Lord,  which  is  destined  to  become  the  joy  and  the 
glory  of  the  whole  earth,  will  exhaust  their  strength 
and  spend  their  lives  in  petty  contentions  with  their 
neighbors,  who  happen  to  find  fault  with  their  scaffolding, 
reared  for  their  convenience,  merely  to  facilitate  their 
labors.  On  this  scaffolding  they  will  linger  night  and 
day,  watching  for  the  approach  of  an  enemy,  like  sentinels 
on  the  walls  of  a  besieged  city,  till  the  very  outworks  be- 
come as  sacred  in  their  eyes,  as  the  temple  itself,  or  the 
holy  altar  on  which  they  should  offer  their  morning  and 
evening-  sacrifice. 

If  it  be  said  that  all  this  is  a  mere  conjecture  or  pro- 
phetical theory,  we  answer,  it  is  theory  built  on  facts  ; 
theory  which  we  might  illustrate  by  the  records  of  more 
than  one  church  in  our  own  country. 

We  therefore,  hope  that  the  church  which  regards  us  as 
members,  will  continue  to  unite  with  others  of  like  charac- 
ter in  the  great  work  of  preaching  the  Gospel  to  all  crea- 
tures ;  and  the  progress  of  this  work,  we  believe,  will 
more  fully  exhibit,  more  gloriously  illustrate,  more  boldly 
defend,  and  more  effectually,  propagate  "  the  faith  once 
delivered  to  the  saints"  than  the  Confession  of  Faith  itself. 

And  this  union  of  effort,  which  the  Lord  regards  with 
peculiar  favor,  we  doubt  not  will  be  strengthened  by  just 
views  of  the  system  of  faith  and  practice,  so  efficiently 
inculcated  by  the  orthodox  churches  of  New  England. 

With  all  our  attachment  to  our  church,  then — and  we  are 
sincerely  attached  to  it — and  with  all  our  Southern  feel- 
ings, and  we  are  not  charged  with  a  want  of  love  to  our 
country,  we  recommend  to  our  brethren  this  volume  of 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  73 

Sermons,  as  a  faithful  and  lucid  exposition  of  the  theo- 
logy of  those  who  are  united  with  us  in  the  most  impor- 
tant enterprise  in  which  our  church  has  ever  been  engaged." 

It  should  be  remembered,  that  the  foregoing  re- 
marks of  Dr.  Rice  were  published  shortly  after  the 
rising  of  the  Assembly  of  1828,  at  which  the  "  As- 
sembly's Board  of  Domestic  Missions"  was  re-orga- 
nized, and  clothed  with  its  present  powers.      Dr. 
Rice,  with  the  majority  of  that  Assembly,  regretted 
the  unyielding  determination  with  which  the  minor- 
ity urged  the  re-organization.      He  regarded  it  as 
unnecessary  and  unwise  ;   though,  after  the  overture 
had  been  rejected  by  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the 
body,  he  was  in  favor  of  the  concession  by  which 
that  vote  was  reversed,  to  prevent  the  unpleasant 
appearance  and  consequences  of  the  protest  of  the 
minority,  which  was  prepared  to  be  entered  on  the 
Minutes  of  the  Assembly.     The  Board  was  accord- 
ingly organized,  against  the  judgment  of  the  major- 
ity, to  gratify  and  appease  the  views  and  feelings  of 
the  minority.     It  was  at  that  time  intimated  by  the 
friends  of  the  measure,  that  the  Board,  as  then  con- 
stituted,  ought  to,  and  probably  would  extend  its 
operations  to  other  countries,  and  become  the  organ 
of  the  Presbyterian  church  for  Foreign  as  well  as 
Domestic  Missions.    It  was,  doubtless,  with  a  view  to 
resist  the  tendency  of  this  suggestion,  that  Dr.  Rice 
felt  himself  urged  to  publish  the  remarks  contained 
in  the  above  extract.     They  were  timely  and  judi- 
cious ;   and  his  predictions,  had  they  been  inspired 
prophecies,  could  not  have  been   more  accurately 
fulfilled  than  they  have  been  in  the  present  lamented 
results  of  their  rejection,  by  those  who  have  con- 

7  " 


74  THE    PRINCETON 

tinued  to  urge  the  separate  and  sectarian  action  of  the 
Presbyterian  church  in  the  work  of  missions. 

Such  being  the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Rice  in  1828,  it 
is  not  surprising  that  he  was  ready  to  express  them 
on  subsequent  occasions.  In  March,  1829,  his  opi- 
nion having  been  requested  in  regard  to  the  "plan 
of  union'''  between  the  Assembly's  Board  and  the 
American  Home  Missionary  Society,  which  was  then 
under  discussion,  he  wrote  the  following  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  latter  institution  :  viz. 

"  The  plan  of  the  Assembly's  Board  is  to  some  extent 
exclusive.  Now  while  I  do  greatly  lament  that  divisions 
have  taken  place  in  our  church,  and  believe  that  they  have 
been  much  increased  by  imprudent  zeal,  and  magnified 
into  undue  importance  in  many  cases,  I  can  never  consent 
to  proceed  on  this  principle  of  exclusion.  Because  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  such  that  one  party 
cannot  turn  the  other  out  of  the  church.  Old  Calvinists 
and  Hopkinsians,  (as  they  are  called,)  are  obliged  to  meet 
in  the  same  General  Assembly ;  and  both  sides  are  so 
powerful  that  they  cannot  help  respecting  and  fearing 
each  other.  And  we  see  evidence  enough  that  neither 
side  will  yield  and  give  up  the  government  of  the  church 
to  the  other.  If  the  old  Calvinists  have  the  majority  and 
employ  only  their  own  men ;  then  the  Hopkinsians  will 
feel  aggrieved  and  form  a  Society  to  send  out  their  Mis- 
sionaries, and  vice  versa.  Thus  will  disputes  in  the  church 
be  perpetuated,  and  a  dissolution  of  our  General  Assembly 
at  length  take  place.  It  does  seem  to  me  then,  that  the 
A.  H.  M.  Society  has  hit  on  the  only  expedient  that  could 
have  been  devised,  in  the  present  state  of  things,  to  bring 
the  whole  resources  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  bear 
on  the  cause  of  Domestic  Missions,  and  that  without  any 
sacrifice  of  principle  whatever.  For  a  Hopkinsian  Pres- 
bytery or  Missionary  Society  can  choose  their  own  Mis- 
sionaries, and  so  of  the  old  Calvinists,  and  there  not  be 
collision  among  them  enough  to  break  a  straw.  And 
here  is  the  fairest  opportunity  for  that  party  which  has 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  75 

the  best  spirit,  and  the  most  of  truth  on  their  side  to  gain 
the  victory.  For,  my  life  on  it,  in  this  age,  those  who  do 
most  to  build  up  the  kingdom  of  the  Redeemer,  will  pre- 
vail. I  would  not  give  one  good  revival  preacher,  who 
converts  sinners,  for  a  hundred  polemic  theologians." 

The  following  is  extracted  from  a  letter  of  Dr. 
Riee,  dated  Nov.  22,  1830,  and  addressed  to  his 
friend  Dr.  Wisner,  of  Boston,  afterwards  Secretary 
of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.  This  date,  it  should  be  remem- 
bered, was  only  about  two  months  before  he  is  said 
to  have  indited  the  "overture"  forwarded  to  Prince- 
ton. In  this  letter,  he  breathes  out  his  full  heart 
on  several  topics  concerning  the  condition  of  the 
church  and  its  responsibilities,  and  concludes  with 
the  following  paragraph  : — 

"  I  wish,  too,  that  some  plan  might  be  devised  for 
kindling  up,  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the  true  spirit  of 
Missions,  and  rousing  this  great  sluggish  body  from  its 
sleep.  Here  is  a  subject  of  delicacy  and  difficulty.  The 
Presbyterian  spirit  has  been  so  awakened  up,  that  I  begin 
to  apprehend  that  no  power  of  man  will  ever  bring  the 
whole  body  to  unite  under  what  is  thought  to  be  a  Con- 
gregational Board.  But  the  church  must  not  be  under 
the  guilt  of  letting  souls  perish,  who  might  be  saved. 
Whatcanbe  done?  Here  we  want  wisdom.  I  never  will 
do  any  thing  to  injure  the  wisest  and  best  Missionary 
Society  in  the  world,  the  American  Board.  But  can  no 
ingenuity  devise  a  scheme  of  a  Presbyterian  Branch  of 
the  American  Board, — co-ordinate, — sufficiently  con- 
nected with  the  General  Assembly  to  satisfy  scrupulous 
Presbyterians,  yet  in  union  with  the  original  Board, — 
having  the  same  object,  and  tending  to  the  same  result  ? 
Do  think  of  this.  Something  must  be  done  ;  but  I  can 
not  say  what.  You  are  the  only  person  in  the  world,  to 
whom  I  have  mentioned  this,  and  I  throw  it  out  to  set 
your  mind  to  work.     Do  let  me  hear  from  you  soon."* 

*  Memoirs  of  Dr.  Rice,  p.  383. 


76  THE    PRINCETON 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  key  to  the  "  overture 7?  of 
Dr.  Rice.  It  was  an  expedient  to  prevent  the  orga- 
nization of  a  H  Foreign  Missionary  Board  of  the 
General  Assembly"  on  sectarian  principles,  with 
sectarian  guards  and  sectarian  tendencies,  by  early 
securing  the  appointment  of  a  committee  by  the 
General  Assembly,  who  should  be  in  effect  a  "  Pres- 
byterian Branch  of  the  American  Board"  in  union 
and  co-operation  with  it.  He  saw  that  something 
must  be  done.  He  was  aware  also  of  the  "  delicacy 
and  difficulty"  of  the  subject ;  and  in  the  documents 
which  we  have  presented,  there  are  evident  traces  of 
the  progress  of  his  mind  towards  the  conception  of 
such  a  plan,  until  he  ventured,  in  confidence,  to 
express  his  wishes  to  his  friend  Dr.  Wisner ;  after 
which,  while  his  infirmities  were  increasing,  and  it 
became  certain  that  his  time  was  short,  he  reduced 
his  conceptions  to  the  form  of  the  "  overture"  which 
was  submitted  to  the  iC  Gentlemen  in  Princeton/'  for 
the  purpose  before  named.  We  are  not  aware,  how- 
ever, that  this  overture  was  ever  brought  before  the 
General  Assembly.  It  was  permitted  to  slumber 
from  1831  to  1836  ;  and  the  first  proposition  submit- 
ted to  the  Assembly  to  organize  a  Board  of  Foreign 
Missions,  was  that  of  1835,  originating,  as  we  have 
seen,  among  the  members  of  the  Pittsburgh  Conven- 
tion. Who,  then,  in  view  of  the  evidences  of  the 
verity  of  what  we  have  now  stated,  will  dare  "  to 
stand  upon  the  grave  of  John  Holt  Rice,"  and 
attribute  to  the  spirit  that  once  animated  his  sleep- 
ing dust,  the  authorship  of  the  measure  rejected  by 
the  last  General  Assembly?  If,  then,  "  it  is  in  vain 
to  attempt  to  cast  odium  upon  the  plan,"  it  is  equally 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  77 

in  vain  to  endeavor  to  sustain  it  by  the  authority  of 
one  whose  wisdom  and  watchfulness  enabled  him  to 
discern  the  existing  tendencies  to  such  a  plan — and 
who,  to  prevent  it,  and  to  enlarge  the  operations  of 
the  American  Board  uto  the  greatest  possible  extent" 
penned  the  very  "  overture"  which  is  now  adduced  in 
support  of  "a  measure"  which,  in  the  resolutions 
accompanying  its  introduction,  declares  "that  the 
operation  of  any  Missionary  Society  within  the  Pres- 
byterian church,  and  not  responsible  to  her  judicato- 
ries, is  an  infringement  of  her  rights,  and  inconsist- 
ent with  her  peace  and  integrity" — a  measure  to 
which,  by  its  own  provisions,  would  bend  the  Pres- 
byterian church  to  conduct  its  Foreign  Misssonary 
operations  on  the  very  " principle  of  exclusion" 
(doubly  guarded,)  on  which  Dr.  Rice  declared,  in 

1829,    HE    NEVER    COULD    CONSENT    TO    PROCEED. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  the  support  attempted  to 
be  derived  from  the  authority  of  a  great  and  good 
man,  we  agree  with  the  Princeton  Reviewers,  (and 
we  think  with  more  consistency  than  they,)  that  the 
plan  "must  be  judged  by  its  own  merits ;"  and  we 
now  ask,  if  there  may  not  be  among  the  substantial 
merits  of  this  measure,  a  merited  odium  attached 
to  a  plan  which  is  so  signally  condemned  by  the 
excellent  authority  adduced  in  its  support?  The 
plan,  however,  has  other  merits,  which  claim  our 
consideration — whether  of  praise  or  blame,  remains 
to  be  shown. 


78 


CHAPTER   Y. 


THE   PRINCETON    REVIEWERS   REVIEWED. 

The  right  of  the  Assembly  to  conduct  missionary 
operations  discussed.  The  agreement  with  the 
Synod  of  Pittsburgh  unconstitutional  and  in- 
complete. 

1.  The  Reviewers  maintain  that,  "in  virtue  of 
the  action  of  the  last  [preceding]  Assembly,  the  As- 
sembly of  1836  was  bound  in  good  faith  to  appoint 
a  Board  of  Foreign  Missions,  agreeably  to  the  con- 
tract formed  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh.  In  sup- 
port of  this  position,  they  say — 

"  Though  our  Assembly  cannot  by  an  act  of  ordaining 
legislation  bind  its  successors,  yet  in  all  cases  in  which 
contracts  have  been  formed,  under  the  authority  of  our 
Assembly,  succeeding  xAssemblies  are  bound  in  honor 
and  honesty  to  execute  them."     Again — 

"  It  is  not  now  the  question,  whether  this  agreement 
is  wise  or  unwise,  expedient  or  inexpedient,  but  simply 
whether  it  has  been  actually  formed,  and  formed  accord- 
ins'  to  the  constitution  of  the  church.  As  to  the  first 
point  there  can  be  no  doubt,  for  here  are  the  documents  ; 
first,  a  resolution  of  the  Assembly  appointing  a  committee 
to  confer  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  in  reference  to 
the  transfer  of  the  Western  Missionary  Society ; — Se- 
condly, a  subsequent  resolution  authorizing  that  com- 
mittee to  conclude  the  arrangement,  and  "  to  ratify  and 
confirm  the  same  with  the  said  Synod  ;" — Thirdly,  the 
report  of  this  committee,  that  they  had,  in  the  name 
and  by  the  authority  of  the  Assembly,  concluded  a  com- 


THE    PRINCETON    REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.      79 

pact  which  had  been  accepted  and  ratified  by  the  Synod 
of  Pittsburgh.  Here  then  is  surely  a  formal  agreement 
binding  in  honor,  in  morals,  and  in  law,  Avhich  can  be 
vitiated  only  by  proving  that  the  Assembly  of  1835  had 
no  authority  to  make  such  an  agreement,  or,  if  they  pos- 
sessed the  power,  that  they  had  no  right  to  delegate  it  to 
a  committee.  Both  of  these  positions  were  assumed. 
That,  however,  the  Assembly  had  itself  the  right  is  plain 
from  the  constitution  of  the  church,  and  from  the  nature 
of  this  body  as  the  supreme  judicatory.  It  has  aright  to 
agree  to  do  whatever  by  the  constitution  it  has  a  right  to 
do.  It  has  the  right  to  acquire  and  to  alienate  property,  to 
conduct  domestic  and  foreign  missionary  operations,  to 
found  and  superintend  theological  seminaries,  and  having 
the  right  to  do  these  things,  it  has  the  right  to  enter  into 
contracts  with  second  parties  in  relation  to  them,  which 
contracts  must  be  binding,  in  law  and  conscience,  on  all 
future  Assemblies."     [p.  422.] 

Here,  then,  are  the  points  on  which  the  Reviewers 
rest  their  argument  in  support  of  the  obligation  of 
the  Assembly  of  1836  to  appoint  the  proposed  Board : 
viz.,  that  the  Assembly  has  a  right  to  conduct  mis- 
sions, and  that  this  right  is  not  only  conferred  upon 
it  by  the  Constitution,  but  belongs  to  it  from  the 
nature  of  the  body,  as  the  supreme  judicatory  of  the 
church.  We  admit  the  premises  here  assumed,  but 
deny  the  conclusion  that,  in  the  exercise  of  the  above 
constitutional  and  inherent  right,  the  Assembly  had 
power  to  form  such  an  agreement  as  that  of  the 
Committee  of  1835  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  and 
we  deny  that  such  an  agreement,  being  formed,  has 
the  nature  or  force  of  a  contract,  binding  on  all 
future  Assemblies. 

We  admit,  then,  that  the  Assembly  has  power  to 
conduct  missions.  The  only  clause  in  the  Constitu- 
tion, however,  which  asserts  this,  is  the  following, 
[chapter  XVIIL] 


80  THE    PRINCETON 

When  vacancies  become  so  numerous  in  any  Presby- 
tery,  that  they  cannot  be  supplied  with  the  frequent  ad- 
ministration of  the  word  and  ordinances,  it  shall  be  proper 
for  such  Presbytery,  or  any  vacant  congregation  within 
their  bounds,  with  the  leave  of  the  Presbytery,  to  apply 
to  any  other  Presbytery,  or  to  any  Synod,  or  to  the 
General  Assembly,  for  such  assistance  as  they  can  afford. 
And  when  any  Presbytery  shall  send  any  of  their  ministers 
or  probationers  to  distant  vacancies,  the  missionary  shall 
be  ready  to  produce  his  credentials  to  the  Presbytery  or 
Presbyteries  through  the  bounds  of  which  he  may  pass, 
or  at  least  to  a  committee  thereof,  and  obtain  their  appro- 
bation. And  the  General  Assembly  may,  of  their  own 
knowledge,  send  missions  to  any  part  to  plant  churches 
or  to  supply  vacancies,  and  for  this  purpose,  may  direct 
any  Presbytery  to  ordain  evangelists,  or  ministers  without 
relation  to  particular  churches  ;  provided  always,  that  such 
missions  be  made  with  the  consent  of  the  parties  ap- 
pointed ;  and  that  the  judicatory  sending  them,  make  the 
necessary  provision  for  their  support  and  reward  in  the 
performance  of  this  service." 

The  above  is  the  whole  of  the  constitution  on  this, 
subject.  It  asserts  the  right  of  Presbyteries,  Synods. 
and  the  General  Assembly  to  conduct  missions.  Bat 
this  right  is  asserted  under  certain  restrictions.  Either 
of  these  bodies  may  send  missions  to  supply  vacan- 
cies, in  answer  to  applications  from  Presbyteries  or 
from  vacant  congregations,  with  the  leave  of  Presby- 
teries, and  it  is  manifestly  intended  that  the  applica- 
tions shall  be  made  to  these  bodies  themselves.  There 
is  no  provision  made  for  the  appointment  of  perma- 
nent Committees  or  Boards  to  receive  and  act  upon 
such  applications.  But  farther  than  this,  the  General 
Assembly  are  authorized,  "  of  their  own  knowledge," 
without  the  formality  of  an  application,  "  to  send  mis- 
sions" (Sec.  Here  again,  there  is  no  provision  for  the 
appointment  of  a  permanent  Board  for  this  purpose. 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  81 

The  missions  must  be  sent,  by  the  Assembly,  of  their 
own  knowledge.  This  can  be  done  only  while  the 
Assembly  is  in  session.  To  direct  a  permanent  Board 
to  act  with  the  knowledge,  as  tvell  as  power  of  the 
Assembly,  would  be  for  the  Assembly  to  perpetuate 
itself  after  its  dissolution,  which  is  absurd.  And  the 
Assembly  can  not  delegate  the  power  of  acting  "  of 
their  own  knowledge"  to  any  Board.  It  is  impossible. 
And  these  views  are  in  perfect  accordance  with  the 
uniform  practice  of  the  Assembly  up  to  the  year  1828, 
when  the  existing  Board  of  Missions  was  organized. 
In  1802,  the  first  u  standing  committee  of  missions" 
was  appointed  by  the  General  Assembly  ;  and  it  was 
then  made  the  duty  of  this  Committee,  among  other 
things,  "  to  nominate  missionaries  to  the  General 
Assembly,  and  report  the  number  which  the  funds 
will  permit  to  be  employed."  The  Missionaries  thus 
nominated  were  to  be  appointed,  and  their  compen- 
sation fixed,  by  vote  of  the  Assembly  in  session,  and 
thus  it  was  the  uniform  practice  of  the  Assembly,  "  of 
their  own  knowledge,"  to  appoint  their  Missionaries. 
In  1816,  "  the  style  of  the  Committee"  was  "  changed 
to  that  of  the  Board  of  Missions."  It  was  not  yet 
understood,  however,  that  this  Board  might  have  a 
treasury  of  its  own,  separate  from  that  of  the  Assem- 
bly, but  they  acted  for  the  Assembly,  and  deposited 
their  collections  in  its  treasury,  subject  to  the  annual 
order  of  the  Assembly,  thus  recognizing  that  provision 
of  the  constitution,  which  enjoins  that  "the  judica- 
tory sending  Missions  shall  make  the  necessary  pro- 
vision for  their  support  and  reward."  Hence  in  the 
Assembly  of  1828,  the  Committee  on  the  report  of  the 
Board  of  Missions  for  the  year  then  terminated,  re- 


82  THE  PRINCETON 

ported  the  following  resolution,  which  was  adopted, 
viz.  "  That  the  trustees  of  the  General  Assembly 
issue  their  warrant  for  the  jjayment  of  the  balance 
due  to  the  Missionaries."  But,  since  that  date,  other 
views  have  prevailed  among1  the  supporters  of  the 
Board.  They  have  regarded  it  as  the  depository  of 
the  whole  power  of  the  Assembly  on  the  subject  of 
missions.  But  the  delegation  of  this  power  to  a 
Board,  we  have  shown,  is  contrary  to  the  uniform 
interpretation  of  the  constitutional  power  of  the  As- 
sembly, as  it  was  understood  and  acted  on,  up  to  the 
year  1828.  They  sent  their  missions,  "  of  their  own 
knowledge,"  and  made  "  provision  for  their  support," 
while  yet  in  session.  And  this  we  regard  as  the  right 
interpretation  of  the  Constitution. 

Again,  If  the  power  to  appoint  missionaries  may  be 
constitutionally  delegated  to  a  permanent  Board, 
under  sanction  of  the  above  article,  then,  by  the  same 
rule,  the  Assembly  may  empower  such  a  Board  to 
u  direct  Presbyteries  to  ordain  evangeliists,  6fcP 
which  would  be  a  manifest  infringement  of  the  rights  * 
of  the  Presbyteries  guarantied  by  the  Constitution. 
Besides,  if  the  General  Assembly  is  authorized,  by 
the  above  provision,  to  appoint  a  Missionary  Board, 
to  act  in  its  name  and  by  its  authority,  then  Synods 
and  Presbyteries  are  authorized  by  the  same  provi- 
sion to  appoint  such  Boards,  to  act  in  their  name  and 
by  their  authority.  The  power  of  conducting  mis- 
sions is  equally  guarantied  by  the  constitution  to 
each  of  these  bodies,  Presbyteries,  Synods,  and  the 
General  Assembly  ;  excepting  that  the  highest  judi- 
catory may  perform  the  work,  a  of  their  own  know- 
ledge," without  the  application  of  those  to  whom  the 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  83 

missions  are  sent.  Bat  if  this  power  belongs  equally 
to  these  several  bodies,  within  their  respective  spheres, 
it  is  manifest  that  no  one  of  them  has  the  right  to  ap- 
point a  Board  for  the  whole,  without  the  consent  of 
the  others.  The  General  Assembly,  then,  has  no 
right  by  this  constitution  to  assume  the  control  of 
missionary  operations  for  the  whole  church,  without 
the  consent  of  the  Presbyteries,  who  have  the  same 
right  to  conduct  these  operations  within  their  several 
spheres  that  the  Assembly  has.  Much  less  has  the 
Assembly  a  right  to  appoint  and  sustain  a  permanent 
Board  to  conduct  these  operations  in  all  the  Presby- 
teries, without  first  ascertaining  the  willingness  of 
the  Presbyteries  to  yield  their  constitutional  rights 
to  the  General  Assembly  for  this  purpose.  The 
Presbyteries  are  permanent  bodies,  and  may  be  fre- 
quently in  session.  The  General  Assembly  is  com- 
posed annually  of  new  delegates  and  has  no  existence, 
excepting  during  the  brief  period  of  its  sessions  each 
year.  That,  therefore,  which  is  equally  the  constitu- 
tional right  of  these  bodies,  during  their  continuance, 
becomes  the  sole  right  of  the  permanent  body,  as  soon 
as  the  other  ceases  to  exist,  and  so  remains  the  sole 
right  of  the  Presbytery  until  another  General  Assem- 
bly is  constituted.  It  is  therefore  an  unwarrantable 
assumption  of  authority  for  the  General  Assembly  to 
claim  the  constitutional  right,  over  the  heads  of  the 
Presbyteries,  to  conduct  the  missions  of  the  whole 
Church,  by  a  permanent  Board,  to  act  during  the  in- 
terim of  its  own  sessions,  when  the  sole  constitutional 
power  belongs  to.  the  Presbyteries  and  Synods,  which 
are  the  only  permanent  bodies  known  to  the  consti- 
tution for  this  purpose.     We  affirm,  then,  that  the 


84  THE    PRINCETON 

General  Assembly  of  1835  had  no  right,  by  constitu- 
tion, to  appoint  the  proposed  Board  to  act  in  its  name 
and  by  its  authority  ;  and  if  they  had  no  right  to  do 
it,  they  had  no  right  to  agree  to  do  it,  nor  to  authorize 
their  Committee  so  to  agree  ;  and  if  the  agreement 
was  made  by  that  Committee,  in  the  exercise  of  their 
supposed  power,  it  was  the  right  of  the  Assembly  of 
183G  to  refuse  to  sanction  that  agreement.  They 
could  not  have  sanctioned  it,  constitutionally,  without 
having  first  obtained  for  it  the  approbation  of  the 
Presbyteries.  For  to  have  adopted  and  ratified  this 
agreement,  with  the  irreversible  condition  embraced 
in  it,  would  have  given  to  it  all  the  permanency  and 
power  of  a  "  constitutional  ride"  and  would  have 
transcended  the  expressed  limits  of  the  Assembly's 
power,  defined  in  the  following  paragraph,  Chap. 
XII.  Sec.  6.  viz. 

"  Before  any  overture  or  regulations  proposed  by  the 
Assembly  to  be  established  as  constitutional  rules,  shall 
be  obligatory  on  the  churches,  it  shall  be  necessary  to 
transmit  them  to  all  the  Presbyteries,  and  to  receive  the 
returns  of  at  least  a  majority  of  them,  in  writing,  appro- 
ving- thereof." 

The  resolution  proposed  by  Dr.  Palmer,  therefore, 
that  this  whole  subject  be  sent  down  to  the  Presby- 
teries for  their  action  in  the  premises,  was  altogether 
reasonable  and  proper.  This  resolution  was  urged 
upon  the  friends  of  the  proposed  Board  as  indispen- 
sible  to  its  constitutional  organization.  But  they 
resisted  it,  and  claimed  the  constitutional  right  of  the 
Assembly  to  appoint  the  proposed  Board,  subject  to 
all  the  conditions  and  restrictions  of  the  agreement 
of  the  Committee  of  the  previous  Assembly  with  the 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  85 

Synod  of  Pittsburgh.    The  Assembly,  therefore,  were 
constrained,  by  the  urgency  of  the  friends  of  the  pro- 
posed Board,  to  appoint  it,   subject  to  all  the  condi- 
tions and  claims  of  that  agreement,  or  to  reject  it 
altogether.     They  chose  the  latter  course,   not  only 
on  the  ground  of  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  pro- 
posed act  of  appointing  a  Board,   over  the  heads  of 
the  Presbyteries,   to  conduct  the  missionary  opera- 
tions of  the  whole  church,  in   the  name  and  by  the 
authority   of  the    General    Assembly,    but   also  on 
account  of  the  condition  embraced  in  the  agreement, 
viz.   "  that  the  said  Assembly  will  never  hereafter 
alienate  or  transfer  to  any  other  judicatory  or  Board 
whatever,  the  direct  supervision  and  management  of 
the  said  missions,  or  those  which  may  hereafter  be 
established  by  the  Board  of  the  General  Assembly." 
This,  had  it  been  adopted,  would  have  bound  all 
future  Assemblies,  (as  far  as  an  unconstitutional  con- 
tract is  binding,)  to  exercise  an  assumed  authority 
over  the  missionary  operations  of  the  whole  church, 
wholly  inconsistent  with  the  rights  of  Presbyteries 
and  Synods  guarantied  to  them  by  the  Constitution. 
Again,  The  contract  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh, 
had  it  been  constitutional,  was  not  completed  by  the 
Committee  of  the  Assembly  of  1835.     The  Princeton 
Reviewers  affirm  that  it  was,  and  say  that,  on  this 
point,  tl  there  can  be  no  doubt,  for  here  are  the  docu- 
ments."    But  they  do  not  furnish  these  documents. 
Had  they  quoted  them  at  length,  as  we  have  done, 
every  reader  might  have  detected  what  our  Review- 
ers have  failed  to  notice,  that  the  "  agreement,"  as  it 
came  before  the  Assembly  of  1836,  was  in  an  un- 
finished state.     Read  the  following. — Section  1.  The 

8 


86  THE    PRINCETON 

Synod  of  Pittsburgh  "authorizes  and  directs  said 
Society,  (the  W.  F.  M.  S.)  to  perform  every  act  neces- 
sary to  complete  said  transfer,  when  the  Assembly 
shall  have  appointed  its  Board."  It  is  therefore 
manifest  that  something  remained  to  be  done,  not  by 
the  Committee  but  by  the  Assembly,  before  the  So- 
ciety could  complete  the  transfer.  Again,  Section  2, 
il  Until  the  transfer  shall  have  been  completed,  the 
business  shall  be  conducted  by  the  Western  Foreign 
Missionary  Society."  Here  too  is  a  recognition  that 
something  remained  yet  to  be  decided  to  complete  the 
contract.  The  General  Assembly  must  decide  whether 
they  will  appoint  the  proposed  Board,  and  until  this 
is  decided,  there  is  no  transfer.  The  business  re- 
mains in  the  hands  of  the  Society,  and  under  the 
supervision  of  the  Synod.  Hence  the  Chairman  of 
the  Committee,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Cuyler,  in  his  letter  com- 
municating the  terms  of  agreement  to  the  General 
Assembly,  remarks  ; 

"  It  will  be  perceived  from  the  agreement,  that  two 
things  remain  to  be  done,  before  the  transfer  can  be 
carried  into  full  effect ;  1.  The  appointment  of  the  Board ; 
— 2.  The  designation  of  its  location  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly.— The  resolution  under  which  the  committee  was 
appointed,  no  doubt,  gave  them  the  power  to  complete  the 
whole  business,  but  they  preferred  to  have  it  done  by  the 
collected  wisdom  and  intelligence  of  the  whole  church  in 
General  Assembly." 

Was  ever  the  like  authority  conferred  upon  a  com- 
mittee in  such  circumstances  ?  Did  ever  a  com- 
mittee, so  appointed,  assume  so  much  ?  A  plan  is  to 
be  devised  for  the  permanent  direction  and  manage- 
ment of  the  great  work  of  Foreign  Missions  of  the 
whole  church,  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  87 

the  General  Assembly.  A  committee  is  appointed 
by  one  Assembly,  when  less  than  one-third  of  its 
members  are  present,  to  make,  ratify  and  confirm  the 
plan,  and  report  it  to  the  next  Assembly.  The  Com- 
mittee proceed.  They  fix  the  details  of  the  plan, 
designate  the  number  and  character  of  the  Board, 
and  settle  it  for  ever,  as  an  irreversible  condition,  that 
the  missions  once  assumed  shall  never  be  alienated  or 
transferred,  &c.  Only  two  things  remain  to  be  done, 
the  appointment  of  the  Board  and  the  designation 
of  its  location  ;  and  Dr.  Cuyler  has  "no  doubt"  that 
the  Committee  had  full  ;c  power  to  complete  the 
whole  business  ']  Then  they  had  powerto  appoint  the 
proposed  Board  of  Missions,  to  designate  its  location, 
and  to  agree  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  that  the 
members  of  the  Board  should  be  permanent!  subject 
to  no  change  by  the  voice  of  the  General  Assembly  ! 
Truly  it  was  very  kind  and  prudent  in  these  brethren 
not  to  exercise  this  unlimited  power.  But  let  it  be 
remembered  that  their  having  failed  to  exercise  it  has, 
by  their  own  showing,  left  the  contract  incomplete. 
This  too,  though  denied  in  the  reasoning,  is  implied 
in  the  very  language  of  the  report  of  the  Committee 
of  1836,  of  which  Dr.  Phillips  was  chairman.  They 
say  that,  in  their  opinion,  "  there  remains  but  one 
righteous  course"  for  the  Assembly  to  pursue  "  which 
is  to  adopt  the  report  of  the  Committee  appointed  last 
year,  and. to  appoint  a  Foreign  Missionary  Board." 
But  if  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  the  previous 
Assembly,  was  submitted  to  the  Assembly  of  1836, 
for  their  adoption,  it  was  also  submitted  for  their 
rejection,  provided  they  should  judge  its  adop- 
tion inexpedient,  unconstitutional,  or  in  any  respect 


88  THE    PRINCETON 

improper.     If,  on  the  question  of  the  adoption  of  this 
report,  the  Assembly  had  a  right  to  say,  yes,  they  had 
also   a  right  to  say,  no.     If  not,  then   we   ask   Dr. 
Cuyler  and  the  Committee  of  1835,  what  it  was  which 
they  intended  to  submit  to  "  the  collected  wisdom  and 
intelligence  of  the  whole  church  in  General  Assem- 
bly?"    Was  it  simply  to  recognize  the  authority  of 
a  committee  of  five,  appointed  by  less  than  one  third 
of  the  previous  Assembly,  and  yield  to  that  authority, 
by  appointing  the  proposed  Board,  without  exercising 
the  power  of  altering  one  jot  or  tittle  of  the  agreement 
of  the  Committee  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh  ?     If 
these  were  the  only  points  proposed  to  the  discretion 
of  the  whole  church,  it  was  well  that  the  representa- 
tives of  the  whole  church,  in  the  last  Assembly,  had 
the  firmness  to  reject  the  assumed  authority  of  the  com- 
mittee, and  to  refuse  a  performance  of  the  two  things, 
which  remained  to  be  done,  to  carry  into  full  effect 
the  alleged  contract.     It  was  no  contract,  and  could 
not  be  such,  "  binding  in  law  and  conscience  on  all 
future  Assemblies,"  without  having  the  sanction  of 
the  Assembly  itself,  in  the  free  and  unembarrassed 
exercise  of  their  " collected wisdom  and  intelligence^ 
All  that  the  Committee  did,  and  all  that  they  could 
do,  was  to  make  proposals  to  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh 
and  to  form  an  agreement  with  the  said  Synod,  in  re- 
gard to  the  terms  of  the  proposed  transfer,  subject  to  the 
approval  or  rejection  of  the  General  Assembly.  "To 
complete  the  whole  business,"  they  had  no  power.  In 
the  Assembly  alone  this  power  resides,  essentially, 
and  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  the  Assembly  itself 
cannot  delegate  it  to  a  committee.     As  well  might 
they  delegate  to  a  committee  the  power  of  sitting  in 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  89 

judgment,  in  the  name  of  the  Assembly,  on  cases  of 
appeal,  or  of  trial  for  heresy.  The  decision  of  such 
cases  is  the  inalienable  right  of  the  whole  Assembly. 
Theirs  is  the  responsibility,  and  they  cannot  vote  it 
away,  nor  throw  it  off.  One  Assembly  cannot,  by 
the  ^intervention  of  a  committee,  take  this  responsi- 
bility and  this  right  from  another  Assembly.  So,  in 
regard  to  the  proposed  organization  of  a  Missionary 
Board,  claiming  lo  settle  judicially  and  irreversibly, 
for  the  whole  church,  as  such,  the  manner  in  which 
its  Foreign  Missionary  operations  shall  be  conducted, 
no  one  Assembly  has  power  to  delegate  even  their 
own  responsibilities  to  a  committee,  and  much  less 
have  they  a  right  to  empower  such  a  committee  to 
proceed  to  ultimate  action,  and  "  complete  the  whole 
business,"  and  thus  to  wrest  from  all  future  Asssm- 
blies  their  rights  and  their  responsibilities  to  direct, 
"  of  their  own  knowledge,"  the  mode  Of  their  mis- 
sionary operations  from  year  to  year. 

We  hesitate  not  to  affirm,  then,  though  it  conflict 
with  the  assertion  of  the  "  Gentlemen  in  Princeton," 
that  the  agreement  of  the  Committee  of  1835  with 
the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh  was  not  of  the  nature  or 
the  force  of  a  contract.  It  was  a  mere  conditional 
stipulation,  and  the  Assembly  were  neither  "  bound 
in  honor  and  honesty,"  nor  "  in  conscience  and  law," 
to  confirm  it.  The  question  of  the  Reviewers,- then, 
is  answered.  A  contract  was  not  formed — was  not 
completed ;  and  the  conditional  agreement  of  the 
Committee  was  not  according  to  the  constitution* 

In  all  this,  we  admit  that  the  Assembly  has  power 
to  conduct  missions.  And  this  we  have  never  de- 
nied.    It  was  not  denied  on  the  floor  of  the  Assem- 

8* 


90  THE    PRINCETON 

bly.  The  expression  attributed  to  Dr.  Peters  by  the 
Reviewers,  "  that  the  Assembly  had  no  power  to 
engage  in  the  business  of  missions,"  was  never 
uttered  by  him.     His  remarks  were  the  following  : — 

"  I  do  not  think  the  Assembly  has  power  to  make  such 
an  arrangement.  I  accord  with  the  legal  view  of  the^sub- 
ject  which  has  been  giyen  by  Brother  Jessup,  and  believe 
heartily  in  the  doctrine  laid  down,  last  year,  by  the  Pitts- 
burgh Convention,  (though  I  do  not  admit  that  as  authority, 
but  use  it  to  you,  Sir,  and  to  the  Chairman  of  this  Com- 
mittee, [Dr.  Phillips,]  as  an  argumentum  ad  hominem,)  viz. 
that  all  authority  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  originates 
with  the  Presbyteries,  and  that  you  cannot  tack  on  to  the 
Constitution  contracts  or  other  irresistible  arrangements, 
till  you  first  go  down  to  the  Presbyteries  and  ask  their 
authority."     [See  New- York  Observer,  June  11.] 

And  the  argument  of  Mr.  Jessup,  by  the  admission 
of  the  Reviewers  themselves,  after  showing  that  the 
powers  of  the  Assembly  are  derived  from  the  Pres- 
byteries, simply  denies  that  the  Presbyteries  have  ever 
"  clothed  the  Assembly  with  jiower  to  establish  Boards 
for  the  management  of  Missions."  In  perfect  con- 
sistency with  these  denials,  we  not  only  do  not  deny, 
but  we  maintain  that  the  Assembly  has  the  power  to 
engage  in  missions. 

And  more  than  this,  it  has  the  power,  (not  by  any 
express  provision  of  the  Constitution,  giving  author- 
ity to  their  acts  binding  upon  the  churches  or  upon 
future  Assemblies,  but  from  the  nature  of  the  body, 
irrespective  of  all  constitutional  provisions,)  to  appoint 
a  Board  of  Missions,  and  recommend  it  to  the  confi- 
dence and  patronage  of  the  churches.  It  may  also, 
in  the  exercise  of  the  same  right,  recommend  to  the 
patronage  of  the  churches  any  other  Board  not  of  its 
own  appointment,  as  it  has  in  former  years,  recom- 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  91 

mended  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for 
Foreign  Misssions,  and  the  American  Home  Mission- 
ary Society.  This  right,  however,  does  not  arise,  as 
the  Reviewers  affirm,  '-from  the  nature  of  this  body, 
as  the  supreme  judicatory,"  but  it  is  a  right  inherent 
in  all  bodies,  who  are  not  prohibited  by  the  constitu- 
tion under  which  they  exist,  to  do  good  on  the  indi- 
vidual responsibility  of  their  members.  Presbyteries 
and  Synods  have  as  much  right  to  appoint  Boards  for 
the  above  purposes,  and  recommend  them  to  public 
confidence  and  patronage,  as  the  General  Assembly 
have.  But  Boards  thus  appointed  or  recommended, 
have  no  right  to  exercise  the  ecclesiastical  authority 
of  the  bodies  appointing  them. 

The  Assembly,  as  we  have  shown,  possesses  no  au- 
thority in  this  respect,  which  it  can  confer  upon  such 
Boards.  It  has  simply  the  power  to  recommend  them, 
and  all  beyond  the  exercise  of  this  recommendatory 
power  is  usurpation  and  assumption,  until  the  Pres- 
byteries shall  have  authorized  it  according  to  the  Con- 
stitution. The  appointment  of  such  Boards,  there- 
fore, by  the  Assembly,  imposes  no  obligation  upon 
the  churches  to  sustain  them  contrary  to  their  own 
preference.  This  the  Reviewers  admit,  and  yet,  in 
the  very  face  of  it,  they  maintain,  that  the  appoint- 
ment, without  any  action  of  the  Presbyteries  author- 
izing it,  maybe  so  made  as  to  be  binding,  in  law,  upon 
all  future  Assemblies,  with  the  force  of  a  constitution- 
al rule.  Their  doctrine  is  not  only  that  each  Assem- 
bly has  a  right  to  do  it,  but  that  any  one  Assembly 
may  so  do  it,  that  all  succeeding  Assemblies  shall 
have  no  right  not  to  do  it,  that  is,  one  Assembly  may 
so  exercise  its  powers  as  to  destroy  the  powers  of  all 


92  THE    PRINCETON 

subsequent  Assemblies  !     The  absurdity  of  this  posi- 
tion is  apparent. 

Again  the  Reviewers  illustrate  the  power  of  the 
Assembly  to  appoint  a  Missionary  Board,  to  act  in 
its  name  and  by  its  authority,  by  its  power  to  estab- 
lish Theological  Seminaries,     They  say, 

"If  the  Assembly  had  no  right  to  organize  a  Board  of 
Missions,  it  has  no  right  to  establish  Theological  Semina- 
ries, and  if  the  Assembly  has  no  such  right,  the  several 
Synods  cannot  have  it,  and  the  Auburn,  Princeton,  Pitts- 
burgh, Union  and  Columbia  Seminaries  are  unconstitution- 
al  excresences." 

We  answer,  if  these  seminaries  were  established  to 
exercise  the  ecclesiastical  authority  over  the  church- 
es, in  any  respect,  which  belongs  to  the  several  bodies 
which  have  established  them,  they  would  be  "  uncon- 
stitutional excresences."     These  bodies  have  no  right 
to  confer  upon  Seminaries  their  own  authority  to  li- 
cense ministers,   to  sit  in  judgment  on  appeals,  (fee. 
But  there  being  no  constitutional  provision  prohibit- 
ing such  seminaries,  for  their  own  appropriate  work, 
the  Assembly  and  Synods  have  a  right  to  establish 
and  recommend  them.     Indeed  there  is  not  a  word 
in  the  constitution  concerning  Theological  Semina- 
ries.     Yet  the  reviewers   maintain  that  the  right  of 
the  Assembly  to  establish  them  is  the  same  as  that  to 
appoint  a  Board  of  Missions.      By  their  own  show- 
ing, then,  the  right,  in  both  cases,  is  out  side  of  the 
constitution,  and  irrespective  of  it,  and  of  course,  a 
right  which  the  Assembly  is  perfectly  at  liberty  to  ex- 
ercise, or  not,  as  its  members  shall  judge  best.     It  is 
simply  the  right  of  a  voluntary  society.     Where  then 
is  the  ground  of  complaint  ?    where  the  obligation, 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED  93 

binding  in  law  as  well  as  conscience,  on  all  future 
Assemblies  ?  All  that  we  have  ever  affirmed  is,  that 
the  appointment  of  a  Board  of  Missions  is  extra-con- 
stitutional. It  is  an  act  which  the  Constitution  nei- 
ther provides  for,  nor  forbids,  and  on  which  it  confers 
no  authority.  This  is  the  doctrine  which  we  have 
never  ceased  to  maintain, 


94 


CHAPTER    VI. 

THE    PRINCETON    REVIEWERS    REVIEWED. 

The  charge  of  inconsistency  refuted. 

In  the  face  of  the  doctrines  defended  in  the  prece- 
ding chapter,  the  Reviewers  affirm  that  we  hare  now 
"  taken  new  ground  and  renounced  our  former  prin- 
ciples."    They  say  of  us,  [page  436.] 

"  They  have  taken  the  ground  that  the  whole  church 
is  committed  by  the  action  of  the  Assembly.  They  re- 
fused to  allow  the  organization  of  a  Board  of  Foreign 
Missions,  because  they  would  thereby  sanction  the  prin- 
ciple, renounce  their  preferences,  and  stand  committed  to 
sustain  an  Ecclesiastical  Board.  The  standing  objection 
was  that  it  would  be  unfair  to  give  the  sanction  and  au- 
thority  of  the  whole  of  the  church  to  a  part ;  whereas, 
according  to  their  old  doctrine,  the  sanction  and  authority 
of  the  whole,  it  was  not  in  the  power  of  the  Assembly  to 
convey  or  bestow." 

Here  again  is  a  surprising  mistake.  This  "  new 
ground,"  as  it  is  called,  was  not  taken  by  us  but  by 
the  friends  of  the  proposed  Board.  And  with  them 
it  is  not  new.  It  has  been  long  contended  for.  It 
was  assumed  in  the  Report  of  the  Committee.  It  was 
urged  by  most  of  the  speakers  on  that  side,. in  the  As- 
sembly, and  the  Reviewers  themselves  affirm  that  the 
Assembly  was  bound  in  good  faith,  in  honor  and 
honesty,  in  conscience  and  in  law,  to  appoint  a  Board 


THE    PRINCETON   REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.       95 

of  Missions,  &c.     But  if  the  Assembly  was  bound  in 
good   faith,  &c.,  then   both  parties  in  the  Assembly 
were  thus  bound,  as  well  those  who  did  not,  as  those 
who  did  approve.     All  must  say,  yes.     Not  an  indi- 
vidual could  say,  no,  without  a  breach  of  legal  obli- 
gation.    The  whole  body  was  bound  by  one  and  the 
same  obligation.     But  if  good  faith,  honor,   honesty, 
conscience  and  law  bound  all   the  members  of  the 
Assembly  to  appoint  a  Board,   then   they  were    all 
equally  bound,  having  appointed  it,  to  support  it.    To 
appoint  it,   and  then  leave  it  without  patronage,  all 
will  admit,  would  be  to  trifle  with  the  sacred  things 
above  named,  good  faith,  honor,  &c.     This  ground 
then,  was  assumed  by  the  Mends  of  the  proposed  or- 
ganization, and  by  them  alone  is  it  maintained.     We 
admitted  the  position  in  our  arguments  only  for  the 
sake  of  presenting  in  their  true   light,  the   alarming 
consequences  which  its  adoption  by  the  General  As- 
sembly would  necessarily  involve  and  entail  upon  the 
churches.     It  was  only  on  this  admission  that  the  al- 
leged contract  possessed  the   binding  power  which 
was  claimed  for  it,  that  the  opposers  of  the  measure 
argued  "that  the  whole  church  would  be  committed 
by  the  acHon  of  the  Assembly."      At  the  same  time 
we  denied  the  power  of  the  Assembly  thus  to  com- 
mit and  bind  the  churches,  and  therefore  rejected  the 
measure  proposed.      All  this  appears  to  be  perfectly 
consistent  and  harmonious.     Was  it  candid  then   in 
the  Reviewers,  for  the  sake  of  an  opportunity  of  de^ 
claiming  against  us,  as  inconsistent  with  ourselves, 
thus  to  attribute  to  us  a  sentiment,  which  we  admit- 
ted  only  for  the  purpose  of  refuting  it  ?     Every  fair 
minded  reader  will  condemn  this,  and  their  own  re- 


96  THE    PRINCETON 

flections,  it  is  presumed,  will  convince  them  of  its  im- 
propriety. 

The  Reviewers  further  exhibit  their  misconception 
of  the  principles  of  the  majority  of  the  last  Assembly, 
on  the  subject  of  constitutional  power,  in  the  follow- 
ing language  :  [page  436,  &c] 

"  The  most  important  and  startling  principle,  however, 
advanced  by  our  new  school  brethren  was,  that  the  Assembly 
has  no  power  to  appoint  such  a  Board,  or  to  conduct  Mis- 
sionary operations  at  all,  This  seems  to  have  been  in 
many  minds  the  turning  point  of  the  whole  matter.  Mr. 
Jessup,  Dr.  Peters,  Judge  Stevens  and  other  leading  speak- 
ers on  that  side  gave  it  a  prominence  which  appears  to 
have  surprised  and  alarmed  those  who  have  never  been 
considered  men  of  extreme  opinions."  Again,  "  There 
are  several  things  in  the  assumption  of  this  position 
adapted  to  create  both  alarm  and  sorrow.  The  first  is  its 
novelty  and  its  inconsistency  with  the  previous  profes- 
sions of  its  advocates.  To  the  best  of  our  knowledge  this 
is  the  first  time  that  this  principle  has  ever  been  advanced 
in  any  of  our  judicatories,  and  it  is  now  advanced  by  men, 
who  for  a  long  series  of  years,  and  in  many  different  forms, 
have  professed  a  different  opinion."  Again.  "  The  Se- 
cretary of  the  Home  Missionary  Society  has,  from  his 
station,  been  the  most  frequent  organ  of  giving  utterance 
to  the  professions  to  which  we  have  alluded.  He  was 
the  active  agent  also  in  proposing  different  plans  of  com- 
promise and  co-operation,  all  involving  the  right  of  the 
Assembly  to  conduct  missionary  operations.  Yet  he  was 
the  leader  of  the  party  which  now  assumes  the  opposite 
ground.  The  men  who  have  hitherto  professed  most 
liberality  and  friendship  are  now  foremost  in  avowing  a 
principle  of  deadly  hostility  ;  a  principle  which  demands 
not  merely  reform,  a  change  of  men,  or  of  measures,  but 
absolute  destruction.  It  is  this,  that  has  produced  alarm. 
The  churches  know  not  what  to  depend  upon  or  what  to 
trust  to.  Mutual  confidence  is  destroyed,  when  such 
repeated  professions  and  avowals  are  forgotten  in  a 
moment." 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  97 

Is  it  so,  that  mutual  confidence  is  destroyed?  And 
is  this  surprising  to  the  authors  of  the  foregoing  para- 
graphs ?     Can  it  be  wondered  at,  that  mutual  confi- 
dence should  cease,  when  grave  religious  periodicals, 
conducted  under  the  sanction  of  "  men  venerable  for 
age  and  station"  are  allowed  thus  to  misstate,  and 
then  to  hold  up  to  ridicule  and  reproach,  the  princi- 
ples, and  reasonings  of  a  majority  of  their  brethren 
of  the  same  church  ?     We  have   already  explained 
the  grounds  on  which  we  deny  the  power  of  the 
Assembly  to  appoint  such  a  Board,  as  was  proposed 
by  the  Committee  of  1835,  with  all  the  unconstitu- 
tional conditions  embraced  in  their  agreement,  while, 
at  the  same  time,  we  have  admitted,  and  have  never 
denied  the  right  of  the  Assembly  "  to  conduct  mis- 
sionary operations."     We   have    also  explained  the 
principles  on  which  we   admit  and  maintain  this 
right.     And  these  positions  are  neither  novel  nor  in- 
consistent with  the  previous  professions  of  their  advo- 
cates.    It  is  not  "  the  first  time"  that  they  have  been 
advanced,  nor  are  they  now  advanced  by  men,  who 
have  ever,  in  any  form,  professed  different  opinions. 
The  Secretary  of  the  Home  Missionary  Society,  in 
his  endeavors  to  promote  the  very  "  plans  of  com- 
promise and  co-operation,"  to  which  the  Reviewers 
allude,  assumed   the  same  positions  which  we  now 
maintain,  in  nearly  the  same  words.     That  this  may 
not  be  doubted,   we  quote  the   following  from  the 
lt  Letters"  of  Dr.  Peters,  published  in  the  "  Cincinnati 
Journal"  in  the  months  of  December  1830,  and  Janu- 
ary   1831,  entitled  a  "  Plea  for  Union  in  the 
West"  and  afterwards  collected   into  a  pamphlet. 
These  Letters  were  in  reply  to  an  official  publication 

9 


98  THE    PRINCETON 

of  Rev.  Mr.   Russell,   at  that  time  Secretary  of  the 
"  Board  of  Missions  of  the  General  Assembly?  con- 
taining several   erroneous  and  injurious  statements 
against  the  Home  Missionary  Society.    The  following 
is  from  "  Letter  III? 

"  CORRECTION    FIRST." 

"  It  is  stated  in  the  letter  under  review,  that  "  the  one 
[the  Board  of  Missions]  is  strictly  ecclesiastical ;  the  other 
[the  A.  H.  M.  Society,]  as  strictly  voluntary"  Now  I 
maintain  that  neither  of  these  Boards  is  strictly  ecclesiasti- 
cal, and  that  the  former,  though  ecclesiastical  in  its  origin, 
yet  so  far  as  relates  to  every  thing  valuable  and  safe  in 
ecclesiastical  responsibility,  is  no  more  an  ecclesiastical  body 
than  the  latter. 

The  impression  which  has  been  entertained  by  some, 
that  the  appointment  of  the  Board  of  Missions  is  formally 
prescribed  in  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
-and  that  in  this  respect,  it  is  strictly  ecclesiastical,  is  errone- 
ous. The  constitution  simply  declares  that  "  the  General 
Assembly  may, -of  their  own  knowledge  send  Missions  to  any 
•part,  §c.  [See  form  of  Gov.  chap,  xviii.]  This  article 
plainly  provides  that  the  General  Assembly,  as  such,  while 
yet  in  session,  may,  of  their  oicn  knowledge,  appoint  mis- 
sionaries, and  send  them  to  any  part,  for  the  purposes  spe^ 
cified.  But  here  is  no  provision  for  the  appointment  of  a 
permanent  Board  to  appoint  missionaries  during  the  year ; 
and  I  see  not  how  such  provision  could  have  been  made 
constitution  ally,  because  this  would  give  power  to  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly  to  perpetuate  its  existence  after  its  dissolution. 
which  is  absurd.  Besides,  if  the  power  to  appoint  mis- 
sionaries may  be  constitutionally  delegated  to  a  permanent 
Board,  under  sanction  of  the  above  article,  then,  by  the 
same  rule,  the  Assembly  may  empower  such  a  Board  to 
direct  Presbyteries  to  ordain  ( range  lists,  &c.  which  would 
be  manifestly  infringing  on  the  rights  of  Presbyteries 
guarantied  in  the  constitution.  I  do  not  deny  that  the 
General  Assembly  have  a  right  to  designate  a  Board  of 
Missions,  and  recommend  them  to  the  churches,  as  suitable 
persons  to  be  intrusted  with  the  management  of  this  be- 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  99 

nevolent  enterprise.  But  what  I  affirm  is,  that  the  ap- 
pointment of  such  a  Board,  so  far  as  constitutional  autho- 
rity is  concerned,  is  extra-ecclesiastical. 

Nor  is  the  Board  of  Missions  an  ecclesiastical  body, 
because  its  Committee  may  have  assumed,  in  any  instance, 
the  appearance  of  exercising  ecclesiastical  authority.  No 
such  authority  belongs  to  it  by  constitution.  This,  since 
the  meeting  of  the  last  General  Assembly,  is  pretty  well 
understood. 

In  the  above  particulars,  therefore,  and  in  all  other  re- 
spects, which  appertain  to  the  constitution  of  the  church, 
neither  of  the  Boards  is  strictly  ecclesiastical.  But  taking 
the  word  in  its  largest  signification,  which  is  "  relating  to 
the  church,  not  civil,11  both  are  ecclesiastical,  and  one  is 
about  as  much  so  as  the  other.  Both  relate  to  th'e  church, 
both  are  sustained  principally  by  the  contributions  of 
professing  Christians,  and  the  officers  of  both  are  mem- 
bers of  the  church.  The  only  difference  here  is  that  the 
members,  officers,  and  operations  of  the  one  are  con- 
fined to  a  single  denomination,  while  those  of  the  other 
are  extended  to  three  denominations,  but  all  in  com- 
munion with  each  other,  and  disposed  to  "  bear  one  another's 
burdens,  and  so  fulfil  the  law  of  Christ." 

Where  is  the  discrepancy  between  the  above  posi- 
tions assumed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Home  Mission- 
ary Society  in  1830,  and  the  grounds  maintained  by 
himself  and  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  of  1836  ? 
Where  the  evidence  that  they  now  assume  the  oppo- 
site ground!  We  answer,  it  is  to  be  found  only  in 
the  assertions  of  the  Reviewers,  repeated  almost  every 
week  in  the  "  Presbyterian"  and  other  party  papers, 
whose  editors  and  correspondents  have  an  avowed 
and  settled  purpose  to  answer  by  representing  us  as 
inconsistent  with  ourselves.  The  Reviewers  proceed, 
[page  437.] 

"  The  case  is  the  more  aggravated  because  of  the  weak- 
ness  of  the  arguments  by  which  the  position  in  question 


100  THE    PRINCETON 

was  defended.  Were  it  matter  for  which  some  show  of 
reason  could  be  presented,  about  which  there  had  been 
previous  diversity  of  opinion,  or  with  regard  to  which 
some  new  light  had  sprung  up,  we  might  be  less  con- 
cerned.    This,  however,  is  not  the  fact." 

Wonderful  ! — "  Not  the  fact"  ?     Then  this  is 
altogether  a  new  controversy  ! — never  heard  of  un- 
til some  "  diversity  of  opinion"  sprung  up  in  the  last 
Assembly  ! — "  Not  the  fact"  ?    Then  Mr.  Russell, 
never  wrote  and  published  an  official  letter  in  1830. 
assailing  the  Home  Missionary  Society,  and  maintain- 
ing the  strictly  ecclesiastical  character  of  the  Board, 
and  declaring  that  it  had    "jurisdiction"  over  the 
churches  ! — Dr.  Wilson  never  wrote  his  "  Four  pro- 
positions against  the  American  Home  Missionary 
Society"  !     Dr.  Phillips  did  not  procure  their  republi- 
cation in  New-York,  and  their  gratuitous  circulation 
through  the  churches  !  and  Dr.  Peters  never  wrote 
his  "  Brief  Answer"  to  Mr  Russell  !  nor  his  "  Reply" 
to  Dr.  Wilson  ! — nor  his  "  Six  Letters"  published  in 
the  "  Cincinnati  Journal"  I  "Not  the  fact"  ? — 
Then  the  a  Act  and  Testimony"  was  never  written  ! 
was  never  signed  ! — was  never  reviewed  and  con- 
demned in  the  "  Biblical  Repertory"  by  the  "  Gen- 
tlemen in  Princeton"! — the  "Pittsburgh  Convention" 
was  never  assembled,  and  the  "  Memorial"  of  that 
convention  was  not  presented  to  the  Assembly  of 
1835  !  ! — Can  it  be,  that  u  such  repeated  prof essions 
and  avowals  are  forgotten  in  a  moment"  ?  The 
11  Gentlemen   in    Princeton"  understand    that  it  is 
much  easier  to  speak  of  the   "  weakness  of  argu- 
ments" than  to  meet  them  with  strength  ;  and  to 
deny  that  they  carry  with  them  even  "  the  show  of 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  101 

reason"  than  to  resist  them  with  any  thing  better 
than  show  ;  and  we  cannot  divest  ourselves  of  the 
unwelcome  impression  that  their  oft  repeated  expres- 
sions of  alarm  may  have   been   published  to  the 
churches,  for  the  sake  of  producing  alarm.     Why 
else  do  they  accuse  us  of  "  deadly  hostility,"  and  of 
maintaining  principles,  which  demand  a  absolute  de 
struction,"  and   which  are  "  adapted  to  create  both 
alarm  and  sorrow"  ?   Why   did  they  thus  early  and 
formally  announce,  that  "the churches  feel  astound- 
ed," and  "know  not  when  they  are  safe,  nor  what  is  to 
be  considered  sacred,"  unless  it  was  that  fhey  antici- 
pated such  results  from  their  own  representations  of 
the  principles,  positions  and  reasonings  of  their  breth- 
ren 'I  We  do  not  charge  these  gentlemen,  but  it  must 
be  apparent  to  every  one,  that,  if  their  aim  had  been 
the  destruction  of  "  mutual  confidence,"  they  could 
hardly  have  devised  a  wiser  adaptation  of  means  to 
an  end  so  deplorable.     But  we  have  still  some  further 
11  show  of  reason"  to  offer,   why  the  blame  of  the 
11  alarm  and  sorrow,"  which  has  resulted  from  this 
controversy,  should  be  attributed  to  them,  rather  than 
to  us. 


9* 


102 


CHAPTER   VII. 


THE    PRINCETON    REVIEWERS    REVIEWED. 

The  unreasonableness  of  the  claims  of  the  minority 
of  the  General  Assembly  in  regard  to  the  propo- 
sed organization  of  a  Board  of  Foreign  Missions. 

2.  The  Reviewers  maintain  that  the  proposed 
measure  was  not  only  constitutionally  proposed,  but 
that  "  it  is  reasonable  and  expedient."  They  reason 
thus : 

"  It  is  notorious  and  acknowledged,  that  one  portion  of 
our  churches  prefer  voluntary  associations,  and  another 
ecclesiastical  organizations,  for  conducting  benevolent  en- 
terprises. The  former  have  an  organ  suited  to  their  wishes 
in  the  American  Board  ;  It  is  therefore  but  reasonable  that 
the  others  should  have  one  adapted,  to  their  wishes,  organ-  , 
izedby  the  General  Assembly."     (p.  424.) 

"  The  former  have  an  organ"  !  But  where  did  they 
get  it  ?  Who  gave  them  their  organ  ?  Did  its  friends 
ask  the  General  Assembly  to  constitute  at  for  them,  as 
a  portion  of  the  church?  No;  it  was  their  natural 
right,  as  individual  christians,  apart  from  any  eccle- 
siastical authority  or  sanction,  thus  to  associate  for  a 
benevolent  purpose.  So  it  is  the  natural  right  of  the 
other  portion  of  the  church  to  organize  themselves 
under  any  form  that  pleases  them.  They  have  no 
need  to  ask  this  right  of  any  General  Assembly.     It 


THE    PRINCETON    REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.      103 

belongs  to  them,  and  they  ought  to  be  contented  with 
it,  as  the  friends  of  the  American  Board  are  with  the 
enjoyment  of  the  same  right.  But  they  are  not  satis- 
fied with  this,  and  they  make  their  dissatisfaction 
the  ground  of  their  claim,  as  a  portion  of  the  church, 
on  the  other  portion  for  more.  They  say  to  us  in  ef- 
fect, "  Because  you  are  satisfied  with  what  naturally 
belongs  to  you,  the  right  of  conducting  missions 
as  you  please,  on  your  own  responsibility,  and  be- 
cause we  are  not  satisfied  with  the  possession  of  the 
same  right,  c  it  is  therefore  but  reasonable'  that  you 
should  grant  us  what  would  satisfy  us.  This  would 
be  reciprocal.  You  have  what  satisfies  you"  !  But 
hold,  brethren.  What  have  you  given  us,  as  an 
equivalent  for  what  you  ask?  Nothing.  Without 
any  action  of  the  General  Assembly  on  this  subject, 
we  have  just  what  belongs  to  us,  and  so  have  you. 
We  have  not  taken  from  you  any  right  which  we 
claim  for  ourselves.  Where  then  is  the  reciprocity 
on  which  you  found  your  claim  7  You  concede 
nothing  ; — we  ask  nothing ; — and  because  we  ask 
nothing,  and  are  satisfied  with  the  exercise  of  our 
natural  rights,  you  claim  of  us  to  become,  with  you, 
the  makers  and  the  patrons  of  an  organization  which 
we  do  not  approve,  and  from  the  responsibilities  of 
which  we  desire  to  be  excused,  as  we  readily  excuse 
you  from  the  responsibilities  of  the  organization  which 
we  prefer.  You  ask,  therefore,  more  than  your  natural 
right,  and  the  whole  force  of  your  argument,  thus  far, 
is  that  you  may  be  satisfied,  however  unsatisfactory 
to  us  may  be  the  measure  which  you  claim.  But  the 
argument  is  not  exhausted  here.  The  Reviewers 
proceed  l 


104  THE    PRINCETON 

"  They,"  (the  friends  of  ecclesiastical  organizations,) 
are  scattered  over  the  whole  country,  connected  with  every 
Synod,  and  perhaps  every  Presbytery  in  the  church.  They 
need  a  common  bond  of  union,  and  this  bond  can  be  found 
only  in  the  General  Assembly.  This  body  is  their  mutual 
representative,  where  they  can  all  meet,  and  through  which 
alone  they  can  combine.  They  have  a  natural  right  to 
avail  themselves  of  their  own  system,  to  give  harmony  and 
union  to  their  actions.  It  was  therefore  ungenerous  and  un- 
just for  those  who  do  not  wish  such  an  organization  for 
themselves,  to  say  that  those  who  need  it  shall  not  have  it." 
[p.  424.] 

A  little  examination  will  show  the  unsoundness  of 
.the  above  position.  A  portion  of  our  churches 
"  need  a  common  bond  of  union,  and  this  bond  can  be 
found  only  in  the  General  Assembly."  Is  it  so  ? 
Have  they  not  a  bond  of  union  among  themselves, 
and  is  not  this  bond  their  preference  for  a  certain 
mode  of. conducting  missions  ?  Can  they  not  be  uni- 
ted by  this  bond,  as  a  portion  of  the  church  ?  Must 
they,  of  necessity,  remain  at  variance  and  do  nothing, 
until  they  are  compelled  to  unite  by  the  power  of  the 
General  Assembly,  associating  with  themselves  in 
the  organization  which  they  prefer,  the  other  portion 
of  the  church  who  do  not  approve  of  that  organiza- 
tion. We,  as  the  other  portion  of  the  church  have 
a  bond  of  union  among  ourselves,  and  we  are  content- 
ed with  it.  We  ask  no  concessions  from  the  other 
portion,  nor  do  we  need  the  exercise  of  any  ecclesias- 
tical power  to  unite  us.  There  is  a  moral  power  in 
the  object  and  mode  of  our  operations  which  bears 
our  hearts  towards  each  other,  and  gives  to  our  en- 
deavors the  energy  of  united  action  ;  and  we  would 
by  no  means  adopt  a  plan,  which  would  exclude  any 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  105 

of  our  brethren  from  the  privilege  of  this  union.  Nor 
would  we  constrain  any  to  co-operate  with  us.  If  the 
other  portion  of  the  church  prefer  another  mode  of 
conducting  missions,  we  are  willing  they  should 
adopt  it.  But  we  are  unwilling,  by  our  votes,  to  adopt 
it  for  them.  Indeed,  we  cannot  thus  adopt  it.  The 
organization  which  they  ask  is  a  "  Board  of  Missions 
of  the  General  Assembly"  and  the  moment  we  con- 
stitute it  by  our  votes,  on  the  principles  contend- 
ed for  by  our  brethren,  it  becomes  the  Board  of  the 
whole  Assembly,  and  not  the  Board  of  a  portion 
of  the  church.  The  measure  which  they  propose 
then,  if  adopted  by  us,  in  the  manner  claimed,  would 
bind  us,  as  well  as  the  other  portion  of  the  church,  to 
an  organization  which  we  do  not  approve,  and  we 
maintain  that  it  is  not  just,  generous  nor  reciprocal 
for  them  to  demand  so  great  aconcession  at  our 
hands. 

The  Reviewers  affirm  that  the  General  Assembly 
is  the  lt  mutual  representative"  of  that  portion  of  the 
church  who  desire  the  proposed  Board,  u  where  they 
can  all  meet,  and  through  which  alone  they  can  com- 
bine." They  doubtless  admit  that  the  General  Assem- 
bly is  also  the  "  mutual  representative"  of  the  other 
portion  of  the  church,  as  well  as  of  themselves.  The 
calamity  of  the  former  portion,  therefore,  is  that  they 
have  prescribed  a  plan  for  conducting  missions  which 
demands,  as  a  necessary  condition,  that  the  General 
Assembly  shall  be  their  organ,  and  they  declare  that 
it  is  on  this  condition  alone  that  they  can  combine. 
But  the  General  Assembly  is  divided  on  this  subject. 
By  their  own  showing,  they  are  but  a  portion  of  the 
church.     The  other  portion  do  not  agree  with  them. 


106  THE    PRINCETON 

Our  representatives  in  the  General  Assembly  do  not 
agree  with  their  representatives.  We  do  not  regard 
the  General  Assembly  as  properly  constituted  for  the 
business  of  conducting  in  this  form  missionary  ope- 
rations. We  deprecate  the  tendencies  of  the  organi 
zation  proposed.  Yet  we  are  a  portion  of  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly,  as  well  as  they,  and  of  the  last  Assem- 
bly Ave  were  the  majority.  Was  it  reasonable,  then, 
to  expect  that  the  majority  would  yield  their  consci- 
entious judgment  to  the  opinion  of  the  minority,  and 
by  their  votes  constitute  the  General  Assembly  the 
organ  of  the  minority,  because,  as  a  minority  they  re- 
fuse to  combine  on  any  other  condition  ?  Yet  this  is 
what  the  minority  demand,  and  they  utter  loud  com- 
plaints, and  call  us  "  ungenerous  and  unjust,"  because 
we  refused,  as  an  Assembly,  to  adopt  a  plan,  which, 
as  an  Assembly,  we  did  not,  and  do  not  approve. 

Our  brethren  of  the  minority  further  claim  that 
"  they  have  a  natural  right  to  avail  themselves  of 
their  own  system,  to  give  harmony  and  union  to  their 
action."  This  is  doubtless  true  provided  their  sys- 
tem does  not  involve  the  destruction  of  the  rights 
of  others.  But  they  have  no  right,  as  a  "  portion  of 
the  church,"  and  a  minority  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, to  control  the  action  of  the  whole  church,  and 
compel  the  General  Assembly  to  become  their  organ 
in  the  prosecution  of  a  system  which  a  majority  of 
the  Assembly  deprecate  as  unwise  and  injurious. 
The  system  proposed  therefore  is  clogged  with  a  con- 
dition which  is  utterly  impracticable,  unless  a  majo- 
rity in  the  Assembly  shall  approve  it.  But  a  majority 
do  not  approve  it.  Are  the  minority  then  deprived 
of  a  natural  right  ?     Is  it  their  natural  right  that  the 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  107 

majority  should  agree  with  them  and  promote  their 
system?  They  will  not  assert  this.  Yet  their  sys- 
tem requires  it,  and  their  reasoning  urges  it  as  a  claim. 
They  are  contending  therefore  for  a  condition  which 
is  not  their  natural  right.  It  would  be  wrong  in  the 
majority  to  grant  it,  as  it  is  wrong  in  the  minority  to 
ask  it.  Oar  brethren  then  have  no  just  ground  of 
complaint.  They  have  their  natural  rights,  and  their 
remedy  for  the  embarrassment  into  which  they  have 
thrown  themselves,  by  urging  an  impracticable  con- 
dition, is  obvious.  It  is  to  relinquish  that  condition. 
Let  them  no  longer  contend  that,  as  a  portion  of  the 
church,  they  have  a  right  to  the  action  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  whole  church  as  their  organ. 
Strange  it  is,  and  marvelous,  that  such  a  right  should 
ever  have  been  claimed  by  any  party  !  Let  it  be 
relinquished.  Then  let  our  brethren  "  avail  them- 
selves of  their  own  system"  on  the  responsibility  of 
such  and  such  only  as  prefer  it  and  desire  to  promote 
it.  This  would  remove,  at  once,  all  grounds  of 
offence.  The  General  Assembly  would  no  longer  be 
disturbed  by  this  distracting  controversy.  Each  por- 
tion of  the  church  would  pursue  its  own  plans,  and 
choose  its  own  organs,  and  both  would  doubtless  be 
blessed  in  their  endeavors  to  do  good. 

But  it  is  here  urged  that  the  plan  proposed  is  eccle- 
siastical, and  can  only  be  carried  into  effect  by  an 
ecclesiastical  body.  Then  let  it  be  adopted  by  some 
ecclesiastical  body  which  approves  of  such  an  organi- 
zation, and  is  willing  to  exert  its  power  and  sanction 
in  its  support.  Let  it  remain  in  the  hands  of  the 
Synod  of  Pittsburgh.  That  is  an  ecclesiastical  body. 
Or  let  the  several  Synods  and  Presbyteries,  if  there 


108  THE    PRINCETON 

be  several,  who  prefer  this  plan,  unite  for  the  purpose 
of  carrying  it  forward.     But  if  this  would  imply  a 
modification   of  plan   or  conditions   to   which   our 
brethren  cannot  consent,  if  it  is  indispensable  for  the 
plan  to  be  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly,  then  we 
see  no  end  to  the  evils  which  must  result  from  this 
unreasonable  and  impracticable   requirement.      So 
long  as  these  brethren  maintain  this  position,  they 
must  continue  in  a  state  of  perpetual  disquietude,  op- 
posing and  opposed.   The  condition  which  they  claim 
is  such  that  they  cannot  avoid  being  the  occasion  of 
perpetual  disturbance  to  the  church,  unless  they  shall 
relinquish  that  condition,  or  withdraw  from  their 
present  ecclesiastical  connexion  with  the  friends  of 
Voluntary  Societies,  and  form  a  General  Assembly  of 
their  own,  which  may  with  propriety  become  their 
organ   for  conducting  their  missionary  operations. 
The  latter  measure  we  do  not  advise.     The  division 
of  our  church,  for  any  cause,  we  should  deprecate  as 
an  evil  of  tremendous  magnitude.     We  would  there- 
fore avoid  giving  the  slightest  just  occasion  for  such  > 
a  result.     But  if  our  brethren  cannot  remain  with  us, 
and  be  contented  to  enjoy  the  rights  which  are  con- 
sistent with  the  rights  of  the  whole  body,  we  hesitate 
not  to  say,  it  would  be  better  to  separate. 

Again.  The  plan  proposed  is  not  ecclesiastical  in 
its  origin,  any  more  than  is  the  plan  of  Voluntary 
Societies.  It  was  originated  and  proposed  by  certain 
individuals,  members  and  ministers  of  the  church, 
more  or  less  numerous,  who  agreed  to  recommend  its 
adoption  by  the  General  Assembly.  Thus  far  it  is 
supported  simply  by  the  voluntary  association  of  its 
friends,  who  desire  to  procure  for  their  plan  the  sane- 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  109 

tion  of  ecclesiastical  authority  of  the  highest  kind  by 
having  it  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly.  Until 
it  is  thus  adopted,  it  has  no  such  authority,  and  no 
claim  to  our  concurrence  on  account  of  its  ecclesiasti- 
cal form  and  pretensions.  We  are  led  to  make  these 
remarks  from  the  apparent  confusion  into  which  the 
minds  of  some  of  our  brethren  have  fallen,  who  seem 
to  have  concluded,  that,  because  their  plan  is  designed 
to  be  made  ecclesiastical  by  adoption,  it  is  so  in  its 
origin  and  nature,  and  that  therefore  its  friends  and 
supporters  are  the  church,  entitled  to  all  the  power 
and  sanction  of  the  church.  Hence  the  Princeton 
Review  asserts  that  "  they,"  (the  friends  of  ecclesias- 
tical organizations,)  u  have  a  natural  right  to  avail 
themselves  of  their  own  system,"  that  is  to  make  the 
General  Assembly  their  organ  for  conducting  mis- 
sions. Again,  [page  425.]  "They,"  (the  majority  of 
the  last  Assembly,)  "  are  deliberately  refusing  to 
allow  their  brethren,"  (the  minority,)  "  to  have  an 
organization  such  as  they  prefer,  which  they  believe 
to  be  essential  to  the  right  discharge  of  their  duty  as 
a  church,  and  necessary  to  bring  all  its  resources  to 
bear  efficiently  on  the  missionary  work."  Is  the 
minority  the  church,  then,  because  it  is  in  favor  of 
an  ecclesiastical  appointment  of  a  Missionary  Board  ? 
This  is  plainly  the  meaning  of  the  language — "  Its 
resources"  i.  e.  the  resources  of  the  church.  But  the 
Reviewers  mean  only  that  portion  of  the  church  who 
prefer  the  proposed  plan.  The  other  portion,  they 
admit,  in  the  sentence  immediately  preceding,  "  are 
right"  in  regarding  themselves  "  perfectly  free  to  pa- 
tronize what  societies  they  please?"  The  resources 
of  the  church,  then,  are  the  resources  of  the  minority, 

10 


110  THE    PRINCETON 

or  at  most  of  a  portion  of  the  church,  and  that  portion 
it  is,  who  "  have  a  natural  right  to  ovail  themselves 
of  their  own  system,"  though  it  demand,  as  a  neces- 
sary condition  of  its  execution,  the  action  of  the 
General  Assembly  in  direct  opposition  to  the  opinions 
and  wishes  of  a  majority  of  its  own  members,  and  of 
the  churches  under  its  care  !  Again,  our  Reviewers 
assert, 

"  3.  That  the  Assembly  ought  to  organize  a  Board  of 
Foreign  Missions,  because  a  large  portion  of  our  churches 
desire  it.  It  is  no  matter  whether  this  desire  in  itself  is 
reasonable  or  not,  it  is  sufficient  that  it  exists  to  render  it 
obligatory  on  the  Assembly  to  gratify  it."     [page  426.] 

"The  consideration  that  a  portion  of  its,"  (the  Assembly's) 
"  members  prefer  a  different  mode  of  action,  is  no  sufficient 
reason  for  rejecting  it  These  brethren  come  forward  and 
say,  We  feel  bound  in  conscience  to  appear  and  to  unite,  as 
a  church,  in  sending  the  gospel  to  all  nations  ;  we  believe 
that  the  command  of  Christ  requires  this  at  our  hands." 
[p.  426.] 

Truly  here  is  great  confusion  of  conceptions,  as 
well  as  the  most  arrogant  and  mistaken  pretensions. 
The  minority  "  feel  bound  in  conscience  to  appear 
and  to  unite  as  a  church"!  And  they  proceed  to  say, 
"  The  General  Assembly  is  our  only  point  of  union  ; 
we  wish  it  to  give  us  a  Board,"  &c.  Mark  the  ex- 
pression, "Give  us  a  Board"!  Would  it  then  be  the 
Board  of  the  General  Assembly,  or  the  Board  of  a 
party.— a  portion  of  the  church?  Yet  the  fact  that 
this  portion  of  the  church  desires  it,  reasonably  or 
unreasonably,  makes  it  obligatory  on  the  Assembly  to 
grant  it  !  But  suppose  the  other  portion  of  the  church, 
(the  majority,)  should  desire  the  Assembly  not  to 
grant  such  a  Board,  and  suppose  this  desire  should 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  Ill 

seem  to  a  majority  of  the  Assembly  to  be  very  reason- 
able and  highly  important, — would  this  be  "  no  suffi- 
cient reason"  for  refusing  the  request  of  the  minority 
in  direct  opposition  to  it  1  Surely  the  Princeton  Re- 
viewers have  fallen  into  confusion  and  a  snare,  But 
the  mistake  may  be  easily  accounted  for.  Some  of 
the  advocates  of  Boards  appointed  by  church  courts, 
have  so  long  and  so  ardently  calculated  upon  the  effi- 
ciency of  these  organizations,  to  increase  the  party 
who  have  sustained  them,  and  make  it  in  very  deed, 
the  church,  that,  in  the  warmth  of  their  discussions, 
they  forget  that  the  desired  result  is  not  yet  attained. 
There  is  still  another  portion  of  the  church  who  have 
adopted  other  plans  of  action,  removed  far  from  the 
blighting  influence  of  ecclesiastical  debates,  and  who, 
while  they  have  scattered  much,  have,  by  the  bless- 
ing of  God,  been  much  increased  and  multiplied. 
This  should  be  remembered  by  our  brethren,  and  that 
we,  too,  "  feel  bound  in  conscience"  to  put  no  obsta- 
cles in  the  way  of  the  onward  movement  of  those 
catholic  plans  of  missions,  which  have  attracted  near- 
ly all  the  minds  in  Christendom,  who  care  for  the 
salvation  of  men,  and  have  been  so  signally  useful  in 
combining  the  resources  and  the  activities  of  the 
church  for  the  conversion  of  the  world.  They  who 
oppose  us,  therefore,  should  not  be  surprised,  if  in  the 
fullness  of  our  hearts,  we  speak  out  on  these  subjects 
and  cause  our  voices  to  be  heard,  in  discussions  so 
vitally  affecting  the  character  and  influence  of  that 
branch  of  the  church  of  Christ,  which  owns  very 
many  of  us,  who  have  been  thus  engaged,  as  mem- 
bers and  as  ministers. 


112 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

THE   PRINCETON    REVIEWERS   REVIEWED. 

The  privilege  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The 
Moravians  considered.  The  arguments  of  Dr. 
Hoge  discussed.  The  influence  of  "  monied 
men." 

4.  The  fourth  topic  of  special  pleading  adopted  by 
the  Reviewers,  on  behalf  of  the  proposed  organiza- 
tion is  the  following,  viz. 

"  We  feel  it  to  be  the  duty  and  privilege  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church  to  engage,  as  a  church,  in  the  great  work 
of  evangelizing  the  world.  We  find  all  other  denomina- 
tions thus  engaged.  The  Episcopalians,  the  Methodists, 
the  Baptists,  the  Moravians  have  each  their  Missionary 
Societies  ;  why  should  Presbyterians  alone  be  deprived  of 
a  separate  organization  ?" 

To  the  question  here  propounded,  we  reply  by  ask- 
ing another,  How  many  of  the  societies  above  re- 
ferred to,  are  mere  voluntary  societies,  having  no  re- 
sponsibility to  church  courts,  as  such?  With  most 
of  them,  we  know  this  to  be  the  fact.  But  even  if  it 
were  otherwise,  we  would  say  that  Presbyterians 
ought  not  to  have  "  a  separate  organization"  for  mis- 
sions, because  the  Presbyterian  church  is  much  more 
liberal  in  the  structure  of  its  constitution,  and  far 
less  exclusive  in  the  terms  of  its  communion,  than 
the  denominations  above  named,  excepting  perhaps 


THE   PRINCETON   REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.       113 

the  Moravians.  It  is  the  glory  of  American  Presby- 
terianism  that  it  opens  its  arms  to  the  reception  of  all 
evangelical  christians.  It  unchurches  none  of  the 
denominations  who  hold  the  fundamental  doctrines 
of  the  gospel.  It  recognizes  as  valid  the  accredited 
ministry  and  ordinances  of  all  such  denominations, 
no twitli standing  their  great  diversities  of  external 
form  and  order,  and  Presbyterians  invite  the  members 
of  these  denominations  to  their  communion.  It  is 
not  so  with  Episcopalians  and  Baptists.  Their 
churches  exhibit,  in  the  modes  of  their  external  ad- 
ministration, conditions  of  exclusion,  which  shut  out 
from  their  communion,  the  members  of  all  other  de- 
nominations, whose  visible  ordinances  do  not  embrace 
the  conditions  required.  It  is  therefore  with  reason 
that  American  Presbyterians  have  cast  the  blame  of 
exclusiveness  and  sectarianism  upon  the  above  de- 
nominations. We  have  not  so  learned  Christ,  and 
least  of  all,  did  we  expect  to  be  urged  by  the  "  Gen- 
tlemen in  Princeton"  to  copy,  in  these  respects,  the 
example  of  Episcopalians  and  Baptists,  the  exclu- 
siveness of  whose  organizations  is  such  that  they 
cannot  consistently  co-operate  with  other  denomina- 
tions in  the  work  of  missions.  Presbyterians  are 
under  no  such  embarrassment.  The  constitution  of 
our  church,  as  well  as  the  spirit  of  our  profession,  as 
Christians,  invites  the  co-operation  of  all  denomina- 
tions, who  hold  the  like  precious  faith.  And  so  far  as 
the  American  Board  is  concerned,  we  are  not  desired 
to  extend  our  co-operation  beyond  a  few  of  the  most 
homogeneous  denominations.  The  members  and 
missionaries  of  that  Board,  are  all  Presbyterians,   or 

10* 


114 


THE  PRINCETON 


belong  to  denominations  in  correspondence  with  the 
General  Assembly  of  our  church,  who  agree  with  us 
in  essential  doctrines,   and  do  not  materially  differ 
from  us  in  the  general  principles  of  their  order  and 
discipline.     Instead,  therefore,  of  inquiring  why  Pres- 
byterians should  be  deprived  of  a  separate   organiza- 
tion for  conducting  missions,  we  cannot  forbear  to  ask, 
why  Presbyterians  should  desire  such  an  organiza- 
tion ?     To  be  consistent  with  the  spirit  of  our  profes- 
sions and  the  expansiveness  of  our  constitution,   we 
ought  rather  to  regret  that,  on  account  of  the  imped- 
iments thrown  in   the  way  by  other  denominations, 
we  are  obliged  to  confine  our  associations  to  so  small 
a  portion  of  the  professed  disciples  of  Christ,  in  the 
great  work  of  evangelizing  all  nations.     Few,  if  any, 
can  be  induced  to  unite  with  us,   in  this  glorious  en- 
terprise, excepting  those  who  are  substantially  Presby- 
terians, and  the  terms  of  whose  communion  are  equal- 
ly liberal  with  our  own.    Why,  then,  should  we  desire 
to  reduce  to  still  narrower  limits  the  circle  of  our  in- 
fluence, as  a  church,  by  adopting  organizations  which 
shall  exclude  the  co-operation  of  the  few  denomina- 
tions who  are  ready  to  unite  with  us  ?     It  would  be 
suicidal.     It  would  weaken  both  their  strength  and 
our  own.     It  would  throw  the  whole  business  of  mis- 
sions under  sectarian  banners,  and  leave   us  to  com 
pete  single  handed  and  alone,   with  other  exclusive 
organizations.      Hitherto  the  union   of  our  church 
with  other  denominations,  in  efforts  to  do  good,  has 
been  its  strength.     It  is  this  which  has  given  us  an 
extent  of  influence  and  an  efficiency  in  every  benevo- 
lent enterprise,  far  surpassing  that  of  every  other  de- 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  115 

nomination,  excepting  those  who  have  co-operated 
with  us,  on  the  same  liberal  principles. 

"  Every  organized  body,"  say  the  Reviewers,  "has 
a  moral  character  to  sustain  and  cherish,  as  well  as 
every  individual  ;"  and  from  this  they  argue  that 
every  church  should  act  under  its  own  banner,  that  it 
may  stand  out  by  itself,  and  as  a  denomination  com- 
mand the  respect  of  the  world.  The  reasoning 
however  is  inconclusive.  It  is  not  the  philosophy  of 
the  Bible.  That  requires  that  we  seek  not  every 
one  his  own,  but  every  one  the  things  of  others.  It 
is  by  self-denying  beneficence,  that  as  individuals, 
we  sustain  and  cherish  the  best  moral  characters,  and 
if  this  is  to  illustrate  the  duties  of  churches  in  this 
respect,  it  inculcates  a  very  different  doctrine  from 
the  above.  It  urges  upon  churches  the  duty  of 
mingling  their  counsels  and  sympathies  and  prayers, 
that  they  too,  as  well  as  individuals,  may  "  bear  one 
another's  burdens,  and  so  fulfil  the  law  of  Christ." 
As  Presbyterians,  then,  if  we  would  sustain  and 
cherish  the  highest  moral  character  and  the  most 
extensive  influence,  as  a  denomination,  we  ought  to 
prefer  those  organizations  for  benevolent  action, 
which  will  afford  us  the  widest  field  of  co-operation 
with  the  servants  of  Christ,  of  other  names. 

"  What  is  the  reason,"  then,  say  the  Reviewers,  "that 
the  Moravians  are  looked  up  to  with  such  respect  and  affec- 
tion by  the  whole  christian  world  ?  It  is  because  they 
have  as  a  denomination,  and  not  merely  as  individual 
christians,  stood  forth  as  an  humble,  faithful,  devoted 
band  of  missionary  men." 

But  under  what  form  have  they  stood  forth? 
"  What  characterizes  the  Moravians  most,  and  holds 


116  THE    PRINCETON 

them  up  to  the  attention  of  others,  is  their  missionary 
zeal.  Their  missionaries,  as  one  observes,  are  all 
of  them  volunteers*."  Again.  The  Moravians,  or 
"  United  Brethren,"  as  they  are  sometimes  called,  have 
had  two  societies  for  missions  among  the  heathen, 
in  operation  for  nearly  a  hundred  years,  viz.  one 
in  London  and  one  in  Amsterdam,  and  to  these  was 
added  a  similar  society  in  North  America  in  1787, 
incorporated  by  the  State  of  Pennsylvania.  And 
the  denomination  itself  has  been  in  existence,  much 
in  its  present  form,  since  1547,  [nearly  three  hundred 
years,]  when  "  they  were  called  Fratres  legis  Christi, 
or  Brethren  of  the  law  of  Christ,  because,  about 
that  period,  they  had  thrown  off  all  reverence  for 
human  compilations  of  the  faith,  professing  simply 
to  follow  the  doctrines  and  precepts  contained  in  the 
word  of  God."t  What  an  example  for  high  church 
Presbyterians  !  We  wonder  that  the  u  Gentlemen  in 
Princeton"  have  adduced  it  in  support  of  the  exclu- 
sive measures  which  they  and  the  minority  of  the  last 
Assembly  defend !  Again.  "  No  schism  whatever, 
in  point  of  doctrine,  has  disturbed  the  church  of  the' 
United  Brethren,"  [since  1727.]  "  They  are  all  of 
one  mind  as  to  the  doctrines  they  teach.  Their  zeal 
is  calm,  steady  and  persevering.  They  would  reform 
the  world,  but  are  careful  how  they  quarrel  with  it."J 
In  this  manner,  we  grant  that  the  Moravians  "  have 
stood  forth  as  an  humble,  faithful,  devoted  band  of 
missionary  me  y'  exhibiting  a  noble  example  of  labor 
and  self-denial  in  the  cause  of  missions.  But  it  is 
not  their  sectarianism  which  commends  them  to  the 

*  "  See  "  Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowledge,"  Moravians. 
t  Ibid.  t  Ibid. 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  117 

imitation  of  christians  of  other  denominations.    And 
what  have  the  Moravians  accomplished,  "  that  they 
should  be  looked  up  to  with  such  respect  and  affec- 
tion by  the  whole  christian  world  ?"     By  the  opera- 
tion of  their  three  missionary  societies,  established  in 
England,  Germany,  and  the  United  States,  after  the 
lapse  of  nearly  a  hundred  years,  the  "  Encyclopedia 
of  Religious   Knowledge^    informs   us    that    "  the 
number  of  converts  and  persons  under  instruction,  in 
the  different  missions,  amount  to  about  55,150,  and 
the  number  of  missionaries  to  about  163."     This,  by 
the  showing  of  the  Princeton  Reviewers  themselves, 
is  the  best  example  of  a  denominational  organization, 
which   can  be  adduced,  and  this  is  much  less  secta- 
rian and  exclusive  than  their  inquiries  imply.     Let 
us  contrast  with  this  the  glorious  and  rapid  success 
of  two  voluntary  societies,   embracing  christians  of 
different  denominations,  associated  in  their  united 
efforts  for  the  propagation  of  the  gospel,  in  heathen 
countries.     The  London  Missionary  Society,  formed 
in  1795,  had  in  1S31,  80  stations,  90  European  mis- 
sionaries, and  20  printers,  school-masters,  &c.  in  all 
about  400.     The  American  Board  of  Commissioners 
for  Foreign  Missions,  formed  in  1811,  has  already  in 
its  employ,   dependent  wholly  upon  the  Board  for 
their  support,  more  than  300  missionaries  and  helpers 
in  heathen   tribes  and  in   foreign  countries.     These 
societies,  therefore,  though  much  later  in  their  com- 
mencement, have  left  the  Moravians  far  behind  in 
the  race.     So  far  as  example  is  concerned,  the  "  Gen- 
tlemen in  Princeton"  should  have  yielded  their  pre- 
ference for  ecclesiastical  organizations,  and  admitted 
the  superior  efficiency  and  success  of  voluntary  socie - 


118 


THE    PRINCETON 


ties.  Before  the  experiment  of  the  latter  had  been 
fully  tried,  it  was  lawful  to  point  to  the  Moravians  as 
the  noblest  example  in  the  world  of  missionary  zeal 
and  success.  But  since  our  fathers  were  taught 
thus  to  regard  these  devoted  pioneers  in  the  work  of 
missions,  another  experiment  has  been  tried1,  exhibi- 
ting- a  much  nobler  example.  '  These  general  societies, 
voluntarily  associated,  have  discovered  a  harmoni- 
zing principle,  which  has  already  resulted  in  a  far 
more  extended  and  efficient  union,  than  that  which 
was  the  glory  of  the  church  of  the  "  United  Brethren." 
By  their  action  and  success  a  deep  and  mighty  stream 
has  set  in  upon  the  churches  of  Christendom,  bearing 
the  hearts  of  the  faithful  towards  each  other  and 
making  them  one  ;  And  we  had  thought  that  no 
friend  of  the  Redeemer  would  desire,  while  no  enemy 
has  the  power,  to  roll  back  that  stream.  It  will  flow 
on,  from  the  infinite  fountain  in  which  it  originated, 
until  its  fertilizing  influences  shall  be  felt  in  the 
length  and  the  breadth  of  the  inhabited  earth,  and 
the  members  of  the  church  universal  shall  no  longer 
say,  "  I  am  of  Paul  and  I  of  Apollos,"  but  all  shall  be 
one  in  Christ  Jesus." 

5.  The  Reviewers  quote  the  language  of  Dr.  Hoge, 
as  reported  in  the  "  New-  York  Evangelist"  of  June 
25,  1836,  and  strenuously  maintain  the  position 
which  he  assumed.     They  say, 

"  It  is  impossible  to  bring  the  Presbyterian  Church,  as 
it  is,  into  general  action  on  any  other  principle  than  the 
one  proposed.  There  are  a  multitude  in  this  church  who 
will  not  contribute  to  the  American  Board.  You  can 
neither  persuade  nor  compel  them  to  do  it.  The  princi- 
ple that  the  church  ought  to  act  in  this  behalf  is  written  on 
their  hearts,  right  or  wrong." 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  HQ 

We  have  no  doubt  that  the  above  is  the  fact  to  a 
considerable   extent,    and  we    regret   ft,    that  it    is 
"  written  upon  the  hearts,"  or  at  least  upon  the  deter- 
minations of  many  in  our  church,  that  they  «  WM  not 
contribute  to  the  American  Board."     But  how  came 
it  to  be  thus  written  ?     It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the 
"  Gentlemen  in  Princeton,"  by  their  repeated  decla- 
rations on  this  subject,  (though  they  have  ever  pro- 
fessed to  be  the  friends  of  that  Board,)  and  especially 
that  the  «  Letters"  of  Dr.  Miller  "to  Presbyterians" 
and  the  public   addresses  and   active   personal   in- 
fluence of  himself  and  his  son-in-law,  Dr.  Brecken- 
ridge,  have  contributed  more  than  any  other  single 
combination  of  agencies,  to  produce  this  unhappy 
result.     They  have  created  suspicions  and  alarm  in 
the  minds  of  many  against  all  voluntary  societies,  by 
declaiming  against  them  as  irresponsible  and  unsafe, 
and  have  thus  weakened  the  confidence  of  some  in 
what  Dr.  Rice  regarded  as  the  «  wisest  and  best 

SOCIETY  IN  THE   WORLD,    THE  AMERICAN  BOARD," 

and  have  diverted  from  it  the  contributions  of  many. 
Is  it  fair,  then,  and  candid,  for  the  "  Gentlemen  in 
Princeton,"  after  having  so  long  and  in  so  many 
ways,  exerted  their  influence  to  produce  this  state  of 
alienation,  to  urge  the  very  prejudices,  of  which  they 
are  conscious  of  having  been,  to  some  extent,  the 
authors,  as  a  reason  for  the  adoption  of  the  proposed 
measure  ?  Are  not  the  «  Gentlemen"  fully  aware 
that,  if  they  were  so  disposed,  it  would  be  perfectly 
within  their  power  to  efface  from  the  minds  of  many 
the  prejudices  which  themselves  have  produced  ? 
But  they  are  not  so  disposed  ;  and  as  we  have  failed 
to  persuade  them  to  relinquish  their  positions,  our 


120  THE    PRINCETON 

only  alternative  has  been  to  resist  them  by  our  votes, 
and  then  to  make  our  appeal  to  the  judgment,  the 
candor,  and  the  enlightened  missionary  spirit  of  the 
christian  public.  They,  on  the  other  hand,  are 
awake  to  the  separate  interest  which  they  have  es- 
poused. They  continue  to.  cherish  and  promote  the 
prejudice  and  alarm,  which  they  have  been  so  suc- 
cessful in  producing.  What,  but  to  foment  suspicion 
and  destroy  "  mutual  confidence,"  can  be  the  object 
of  the  following  insinuations  against  all  voluntary 
societies  for  benevolent  purposes  ?    [page  438.] 

"  And  by  whom  are  these  voluntary  associations  con- 
trolled ?  By  monied  men.  Whatever  may  be  the  theory 
of  their  operation,  this  we  believe  to  be  practically  the 
fact."  Again,  "  It  results  from  the  nature  of  the  system. 
The  men  who  have  the  direction  of  the  education  of  the 
candidates  for  the  ministry,  and  the  location  and  support 
of  these  candidates,  when  ordained,  have  ten  thousand 
sources  of  influence  in  the  feelings  and  associations,  as 
well  as  interests  of  those  concerned,  which  render  them 
the  arbiters  of  the  destinies  of  the  church.  This  influence 
is  the  more  serious  because  it  is  invisible,  unofficial  and 
consequently  irresponsible.  It  is  acquired  in  one  sphere, 
and  is  made  to  bear  on  all  others.  It  is  created  with- 
out, yet  enters  all  our  church  judicatories,  decides  points 
of  discipline  and  doctrine,  and  determines  the  whole 
course  of  ecclesiastical  affairs." 

Is  it  possible  that  the  Professors  in  the  "  Theologi- 
cal Seminary  of  the  Presbyterian  Church"  have 
come  to  this  ;  that,  "  for  the  sake  of  a  purpose,"  they 
are  willing  to  cast  odium  upon  our  most  efficient  and 
successful  systems  of  religious  charity,  by  the  "  sneer- 
ing" insinuation  that  they  are  sustained  and  directed 
by  monied  men  ?  Are  they  not  aware  that  this  is  an 
appeal  to  the  lowest  prejudices  of  the  ignorant,  and 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED,  121 

of  such  as  are  opposed  to  all  benevolent  efforts  ?     Do 
they  not  know  that  the  exigences  of  the  cause  of 
Christ,  in  the  whole  world,  require  the  contribution 
of  money,  in  large  amounts  ?     And  who,  but  "  mo- 
nied  men?  can  supply  these  consecrated  treasures? 
The  orphan's  pittance  and  the  widow's  mite  fall  far 
below  the  demands  of  the  cause,   and  the   authority 
of  heaven  has  imposed  upon  the  rich  the  obligation 
to  give  of  their  abundance.     No  system  of  operation 
can  be  devised,  which  would  allow  us  to  dispense 
with  their  contributions.      And  is  the  influence  of 
"  monied  men"  dangerous,  and  to  be  deprecated,  only 
when  the  spirit  of  piety  and  love  to  the  souls  of  men 
constrains  them  to  dispense  their   wealth  in  the  pro- 
motion of  religious  charity  ?     There  are  some  "  mo- 
nied men"  among  us,  of  immense  possessions,  who  are 
mighty  to  sign  Acts  and  Testimonies,  and  to  prepare 
newspaper  paragraphs  against  the  benevolent  en- 
deavors of  their  brethren,  and  a  few  who  have  recent- 
ly shown  themselves  valiant  in  opposition  to  the  de- 
cisions of  the  last  General  Assembly,  by  appending 
their  names  to  a  secret   "  circular,"  and  a  published 
pamphlet,  whose  avowed  object  is  the  division  and 
dismemberment  of  the  Presbyterian  church.     Would 
these  men  have  been  less  usefully  employed,  and  their 
influence  more  dangerous,  had  they  written  less  and 
given  more  ?     Read  the  "  Act  and  Testimony?  and 
the  late  pamphlet  of  Drs.   Phillips,  McElroy,  Breck- 
enridge  and  McDowell,  and  Messrs.  Potts,  M'Farland, 
Krebs,  Rankin,  Auchincloss  and  Lenox,  and  contrast 
these  documents  with  the  last  Report  of  the  Ameri- 
can Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions, 
and  then  judge  !     Can  any  one  fail  to  see  that  the 

11 


122  THE     PRINCETON 

whole  design  and  tendency  of  the  latter  is  to  u  length- 
en the  cords  and  strengthen  the  stakes"  of  all  the 
tents  of  Israel,  and  the  former  tends  only  to  produce 
alienation  and  strife,  the  destruction  of  "  mutual  con- 
fidence," and  the  disruption  of  those  ties  which  bind 
friend  to  friend,  and  brother  to  brother,  in  the  labor 
of  love  ?  A  cold  and  sickening  sadness  comes  over 
us  when  we  contemplate  these  results,  and  reflect  how 
much  of  the  influence  of  wealth  and  of  official  station 
has  already  been  worse  than  wasted  in  the  production 
of  these  inflammatory  and  agitating  communications 
to  the  public. 

But "  monied  men,"  it  is  said,  on  the  voluntary  plan, 
control  the  societies,  which  are  supported  by  their 
contributions,  and  from  this  results  the  danger  com- 
plained of.  Is  not  the  same  result  also  experienced 
on  the  ecclesiastical  plan  ?  If  not,  who  does  control 
the  Boards  appointed  by  church  courts?  Shall  these 
courts  possess  the  control,  the  majority  of  whose 
members,  as  in  the  present  case,  contribute  nothing 
to  the  support  of  the  Boards  in  question  ?  And  can 
our  brethren  regard  this  as  a  measure  either  of  safety 
or  of  efficiency?  Shall  all  the  influence,  of  monied 
men,  which,  while  within  their  own  control,  is  re- 
garded so  dangerous,  be  put  out  of  their  hands,  and 
committed  to  the  control  of  men  who  already  possess 
the  ecclesiastical  power  of  the  church  ?  This  would 
be  a  practical  carrying  out  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
"Pittsburgh  Convention,"  that  the  funds  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  "  by  the  laws  of  all  social  order, 
ought  to  come  into  the  treasury  of  the  body  to  which 
its  possessors  belong."  But  the  safety  of  this  doctrine 
has  been  most  signally  disproved  by  the  history  of 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  123 

the  Romish  Church,  which  has  accumulated  the  tre- 
mendous power  with  which  it  has  scourged  the  na- 
tions, for  so  many  ages,  by  a  practical  adoption  of  this 
•very  principle.  It  is  Popery  thus  to  unite  and  con- 
centrate the  power  of  pecuniary  patronage  and  of  ec- 
clesiastical authority  in  the  same  hands,  to  be  wield- 
ed without  restraint.  And  is  it  probable  that  Pro- 
testants, with  all  these  facts  before  them,  will  surren- 
der their  personal  rights  to  the  claims  of  such  a  prin- 
ciple, and  contribute  largely  to  institutions  thus  con- 
trolled ?  Among  us,  hitherto,  it  has  not  been  so  ;  and 
it  cannot  be.  Enlightened  and  liberal  men,  who  feel 
their  individual  responsibility  of  seeing  that  their 
contributions  are  well  appropriated,  will  choose  to 
patronize  societies,  whose  agencies  are,  in  some  de- 
gree, within  their  own  control,  and  whose  abuses  of 
trust  and  of  confidence,  may  be  reached  and  correct- 
ed by  the  very  men  who  furnish  the  means  of  their 
support  and  efficiency.  The  influence  of  monied 
men,  then,  cannot  be  separated  from  the  immense 
pecuniary  means  which  is  required  for  the  conver- 
sion of  the  world,  and  the  least  of  all  dangers  connect- 
ed  with  this  influence  is,  that  those  whose  hearts  are 
so  warmed  with  love  to  the  heathen,  that  they  are 
willing  to  contribute  largely  of  their  means  to  send 
them  the  gospel,  will  desire  to  make  use  of  their  pe- 
cuniary patronage  for  sinister  ends.  And  what  if 
"  this  influence  is  acquired  in  one  sphere,  and  is  made 
to  bear  on  all  others"  ?  Is  not  this  the  fact  with  eve- 
ry influence  which  exists  in  the  church  ?  Where  do 
the  Princeton  Professors  acquire  their  influence  ?  and 
where  do  they  use  it  ?  And  whether  it  be  acquired 
without  or  within  the  church,  if  it  be  a  good  influ- 


124  THE    PRINCETON 

eriee,  we  welcome  it  to  our  church  judicatories.  £fei- 
ther  the  influence  of  money  nor  of  official  station  will 
harm  us,  if  they  who  possess  it,  wilt  write  upon  it  all, 
"Holiness  to  the  Lord,"  and  consecrate  it  to  the 
spread  of  the  "  glorious  gospel  of  the  blessed  God." 
We  are  not  alarmed,  therefore,  by  the  decision 
of  the  last  Assembly  on  the  subject  of  Foreign 
Missions.  The  gentlemen  in  Princeton  u  fear  the  re- 
sult has  inflicted  a  deeper  wound  on  the  prosperity 
of  our  church,  than  she  has  suffered  for  a  longtime/' 
The  reasons  of  this  apprehension  we  have  sufficient- 
ly considered,  and  in  view  of  all  the  bearings  and  pro- 
bable influences  of  that  decision,  we  cannot  but  regard 
it  as  an  event  most  propitious  to  the  general  interests  of 
the  cause  of  Christ,  and  especially  to  the  prosperity 
of  our  own  church,  and  its  increased  efficiency  in 
the  work  of  missions.  It  leaves  the  several  branch- 
es of  our  extended  communion  free  to  adopt,  without 
embarrassment,  such  plans  as  they  prefer,  and  has 
produced,  as  we  regard  it,  a  happy  separation  of  the 
work  of  Foreign  Missions  from  the  exercise  of  the 
supreme  judicial  authority  of  the  church.  We  re- 
gret, as  much  as  our  brethren  can,  the  misconcep- 
tions, wrong  statements  and  alienations  which  the 
unlooked  for  resistance  of  the  decision  referred  to  has 
occasioned.  But  our  hope  is,  that  this  unkindness 
will  be  temporary,  and  that  under  the  operation  of 
the  present  arrangements,  it  will  soon  give  place  to 
a  better  state  of  feeling.  The  friends  of  the  Amer- 
ican Board  have  already  expressed  their  satisfaction 
in  unmeasured  terms,  and  those  of  the  Western  For- 
eign Missionary  Society,  we  trust,  will  ere  long  be 
convinced  that  their  operations  are  far  less  embar- 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED  125 

rassed,  under  the  present  arrangement,  than  they 
could  have  been  under  the  control  of  the  General 
Assembly,  divided  as  that  body  is,  and  probably  must 
be  for  a  long  time  to  come,  in  their  conscientious 
opinions  on  this  subject.  May  the  great  Head  of  the 
church  preserve  us  from  all  future  jealousies  and  con- 
tentions in  regard  to  this  most  important,  most  sacred 
interest,  whose  success,  under  God,  depends,  more 
essentially  than  is  generally  apprehended,  upon  the 
united  endeavors,  as  well  as  the  fervent  prayers  of 
all,  of  every  name,  who  desire  to  see  the  heathen 
given  to  Christ  for  his  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  earth  for  a  possession. 


IV 


126 


CHAPTER    IX. 


THE    PRINCETON   REVIEWERS    REVIEWED. 

The  Trial  and  Restoration  of  Mr.  Barnes.  Influ- 
ences tending  to  a  division  of  the  church  depre- 
cated. 

Early  in  the  year  1835,  Dr.  Junkin,  being  himself 
a  member  of  another  Presbytery,  presented  a  series 
of  charges  against  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes  before  the 
second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  for  error  in  doc- 
trine, founded  on  his  "  Notes  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans."  The  Presbytery  having  tried  and  acquit- 
ted Mr.  Barnes,  Dr.  Junkin  appealed  to  the  Synod 
of  Philadelphia,  where  the  decision  of  the  Presby- 
tery was  reversed  and  Mr.  Barnes  was  "  suspended 
from  the  exercise  of  all  the  functions  proper  to  the 
gospel  ministry"  To  this  decision  Mr.  Barnes  sub- 
mitted, and  remained  silent  for  about  seven  months, 
his  congregation  being,  during  that  time,  without  a 
pastor,  waiting  for  his  restoration  by  the  General  As- 
sembly. For  this  purpose  he  pursued  the  constitu- 
tional steps,  and  made  his  appeal  to  the  Assembly  of 
1836.  The  appeal  being  found  in  order,  the  records 
in  the  case  were  read,  and  the  parties  fully  heard, 
after  which  the  roll  was  called  for  the  opinions  of 
the  court ;   the  whole  occupying,  more  than  a  week, 


THE    PRINCETON    REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.       127 

the  undivided  attention  of  the  Assembly.  The  call- 
ing of  the  roll,  being  completed,  the  vote  of  the  As- 
sembly was  taken  on  the  question  "  sustain,  or  not 
sustain  V  and  the  votes  stood  134  affirmative,  96 
negative,  and  6  non-liquests. 

Dr.  Miller  then  moved  the  following  resolution, 
viz. 

"  Resolved,  That  while  this  General  Assembly  has 
thought  proper  to  remove  the  sentence  of  suspension 
under  which  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes  was  placed  by  the 
Synod  of  Philadelphia  ;  yet  the  judgment  of  this  Assem- 
bly is,  that  Mr.  Barnes,  in  his  notes  on  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  has  published  opinions  materially  at  variance 
with  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
and  with  the  word  of  God  ;  especially  with  regrad  to 
original  sin,  and  the  relation  of  man  to  Adam,  and  justifi- 
cation by  faith  in  the  atoning  sacrifice  and  righteousness 
of  the  Redeemer.  The  Assembly  consider  the  manner  in 
which  Mr.  Barnes  has  controverted  the  language  and  doc- 
trines of  our  public  standards  as  highly  reprehensible,  and 
as  adapted  to  pervert  the  minds  of  the  rising  generation 
from  the  simplicity  and  purity  of  the  Gospel  plan.  And 
although  some  of  the  most  objectionable  statements  and 
expressions  which  appeared  in  the  earlier  editions  of  the 
work  in  question  have  been  either  removed,  or  so  far  modi- 
fied or  explained  as  to  render  them  more  in  accordance 
with  our  public  formularies,  still  the  Assembly  consider 
the  work,  even  in  its  present  amended  form,  as  containing 
representations  which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  letter 
or  spirit  of  our  public  standards,  and  would  solemnly 
admonish  Mr.  Barnes  again  to  review  this  work,  to  modify 
still  further  the  statements  which  have  grieved  his  breth- 
ren ;  and  to  be  more  careful  in  time  to  come  to  study  the 
purity  and  peace  of  the  church." 

On  motion  of  Dr.  Peters  the  above  resolution  was 
postponed  for  the  purpose  of  introducing  the  follow- 
ing, which  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  145  to  78,  non- 
liquets  11. 


128  THE    PRINCETON 

"  Resolved,  That  the  decision  of  the  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia, suspending  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes  from  all  the 
functions  proper  to  the  gospel  ministry,  be,  and  it  hereby 
is  reversed/' 

Dr.  Millers  resolution  was  resumed,  when  Mr. 
Labaree  proposed  that  it  be  amended,  by  striking  out 
all  after  the  word  •"  Resolved,"  and  inserting  the  fol- 
ing,  viz. 

11  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  Assembly  there  are  terms 
and  modes  of  expression  in  the  first  edition  of  Mr.  Barnes' 
Notes  on  the  Romans  which  are  liable  to  misconception, 
and  which  have  been  misunderstood,  but  we  are  happy  to 
find  that  these  exceptionable  expressions  have  generally 
been  modified  or  omitted  in  the  late  editions  of  his  book. 
This  Assembly  would,  therefore,  affectionately  recom- 
mend to  Mr.  B.  in  his  future  publications  to  avoid  the  use 
of  phraseology  which  is  liable  to  misconstruction." 

This  motion  being  strenuously  opposed,  Mr.  La- 
baree was  induced  to  withdraw  it,  and  give  place  to 
Dr.  Miller's  resolution,  which  was  rejected  by  a  vote 
of  122  negative  to  109  affirmative,  non-1  iquets  3. 

Dr.  Phillips  and  Dr.  Hoge  gave  notice,  each  for 
himself  a  d  such  others  as  should  join  him,  that  they 
should  enter  their  protest  against  the  above  decision. 
Their  Protests  were  accordingly,  in  due  time  pre- 
sentel  andorch  red  to  be  entered  on  the  minutes. 

Protest  of  Dr.  Phillips,  signed  by  himself  and  one 
hundred  other  members  of  the  Assembly. 

Whereas  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  did,  by  their  vote  on  the  7th  inst.,  reject  a  resolu- 
tion disapproving  some  of  the  doctrinal  statements  con- 
tained in  Barnes'  notes  on  the  Romans,  which  resolution, 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  129 

especially  under  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case, 
the  undersigned  considered  of  high  importance  to  the 
church  with  which  we  are  connected,  to  the  cause  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  just  exhibition 
of  his  grace  and  truth  ;  Ave,  whose  names  are  subscribed, 
feel  constrained,  in  the  name  of  the  Great  Head  of  the 
Church,  solemnly"  to  protest  against  said  decision,  for  the 
following  reasons,  viz  : 

1.  Because  we  believe  that  the  constitutional  standards 
of  the  church,  in  their  plain  and  obvious  meaning,  and  in 
the  sense  in  which  they  have  always  been  received,  are 
the  rule  of  judgment  by  which  all  doctrinal  controversies 
are  to  be  decided  ;  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  church  to 
maintain  inviolate  her  doctrine  and  order,  agreeably  to 
those  standards,  to  bear  her  decided  testimony  against  all 
deviations  from  them,  and  not  to  countenance  them,  even 
by  implication  ;  yet  in  the  above  decision,  there  was,  as 
we  believe,  a  departure  from  our  constitutional  rule — a 
refusal  to  bear  testimony  against  errors,  with  an  implied 
approbation  of  them  ;  and  a  constructive  denial,  that  mini- 
sters of  the  gospel  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  are  under 
solemn  obligations  to  conform  in  their  doctrinal  sentiments 
to  our  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms. 

2.  Because  the  errors  contemplated  in  the  aforesaid  re- 
solution do  not  consist  merely,  nor  chiefly,  in  inaccurate 
or  ambiguous  expressions,  and  mistaken  illustrations,  but 
in  sentiments  and  opinions  respecting  the  great  and  im- 
portant doctrines  of  the  gospel,  which  are  inconsistent 
with  the  statement  of  those  doctrines  made  in  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  and  revealed  in  the  word  of  God.  We  sin- 
cerely and  firmly  believe  that  Mr.  Barnes  has  denied  (and 
that  in  a  sneering  manner,)  that  Adam  was  the  covenant 
head  of  the  human  race,  that  all  mankind  sinned  in  him, 
as  such,  and  were  thus  brought  under  the  penalty  of  trans- 
gression ;  that  Christ  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  when 
he  died  for  sin,  and  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  im- 
puted to  believers  for  justification.  These  and  similar 
doctrinal  views  we  regard  as  material  variations  from  our 
standards,  as  dangerous  in  themselves,  and  as  contrave- 
ning some  of  the  leading  principles  of  our  system,  such  as 
man's  complete  dependence  and  the  perfect  harmony  of 
justice  and  grace  in  the  salvation-  of  the  sinner. 


130 


THE    PRINCETON 


3.  Because  this  expression  of  approbation  of  his  opin- 
ions, was  passed  after,  as  we  believe,  it  had  been  clearly 
and  sufficiently  proved  to  the  Assembly  that  Mr.  Barnes 
had  denied  these  important  truths,  and  had  expressed  opin- 
ions respecting  original  sin,  the  nature  of  faith,  and  the 
nature  of  justification,  which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  our 
standards  ;  and  after,  instead  of  retracting  any  of  his 
doctrinal  opinions,  he  had  declared  expressly  before  the 
Assembly,  and  published  in  the  preface  to  the  last  edition 
of  his  Notes  on  the  Romans,  that  he  had  not  changed,  but 
held  them  still,  and  was  determined  to  preach  them  until 
he  died. 

For  these  reasons  and  for  the  glory  of  God,  that  we  may 
preserve  a  conscience  void  of  offence,  we  request  that 
this,  our  solemn  protest  may  be  entered  on  the  minutes  of 
the  Assembly. 

Protest  of  Dr.  Hoge,  signed  by  himself  and  fifteen 
others,  all  of  whom  are  included  among  the 
signers  of  the  preceding  protest  by  Dr.  Phillips. 

The  undersigned  members  of  the  General  Assembly 
who  were  of  opinion  that  the  appeal  of  the  Rev.  Albert 
Barnes  should  be  sustained  only  in  part,  and  that  a  modi- 
fied decision  should  be  made,  beg  leave  to  present  to  the 
Assembly  this  brief  explanation  of  their  views,  and  desire 
that  it  may  be  entered  on  the  minutes,  as  their  protest 
against,  the  course  which  has  been  pursued  in  this  case. 

1 .  They  explicitly  declare  that  in  their  opinion  the  re- 
fusal of  the  Presbytery  to  bring  their  records  before  the 
Synod,  and  of  Mr.  Barnes  to  appear  and  plead  in  defence, 
when  their  objections  had  been  overruled,  was  irregular 
and  censurable  ;  and  that  although  the  Synod  acted  in  a 
manner  that  was  questionable,  and  perhaps  injudicious,  in 
trying  the  appeal  of  Dr.  Junkin,  without  the  records  of  the 
Presbytery  and  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Barnes,  who  had 
declined  making  any  defence,"  yet  this  irregularity  was  not 
of  such  a  nature  as  to  annul  their  proceedings. 

2.  They  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  charges  brought 
against  Mr.  Barnes  by  Dr.  Junkin  were  at  least  partly 
substantiated,  and  that  on  very  important  topics  of  the 
system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Confession  of  Faith 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  131 

and  the  Word  of  God ;  and  that  therefore  the  appeal  could 
be  sustained  only  in  a  modified  sense,  if  at  all,  on  this 
ground,  without  an  implied  approbation  of  his  doctrinal 
views. 

3.  Further  they  were  of  the  opinion  that — inasmuch  as 
some  of  the  charges  were  not  fully  if  at  all  sustained ; 
and  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  Synod  ought,  as  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  appeared  to  be,  to  have  inflicted 
the  censure  of  suspension,  and  Mr.  Barnes,  during  the 
progress  of  this  trial,  exhibited  some  important  alterations 
of  his  book,  and  made  such  explanations  and  disavowals 
of  the  sentiments  ascribed  to  him,  as  were  satisfactory  in 
a  considerable  degree — the  removal  of  his  suspension 
might  be  deemed  proper  and  safe  :  they  were,  therefore, 
willing  on  this  account  to  concur  in  this  measure  ;  but  did 
not  desire  to  sustain  the  appeal  in  an  unqualified  sense. 

The  undersigned,  therefore,  desire  to  place  themselves 
aright,  in  the  discharge  of  their  official  duty,  before  this 
Assembly  and  the  church  with  which  they  are  connected, 
and  the  whole  christian  church,  so  far  as  these  transac- 
tions may  be  known  ;  and  cannot  consent  to  be  understood 
as  giving  countenance  to  irregular  proceedings  in  the 
judicatories  of  the  church,  or  those  who  are  amenable  to 
them  ;  or  as  overlooking  erroneous  doctrinal  sentiments  ; 
or  as  desiring  to  exercise  undue  severity  towards  the  ap- 
pellant. And  they  cannot  withhold  the  expression  of 
their  regret,  that  all  their  efforts  to  procure  a  justly  modi- 
fied decision  were  defeated  by  the  positions  occupied  by 
different  and  opposite  portions  of  the  Assembly  in  regard 
to  this  case  ;  nor  will  they  conceal  that  they  have  painful 
apprehensions  that  these  things  will  lead  to  extended  and 
increased  dissension,  and  endanger  the  disruption  of  the 
holy  bonds  which  hold  us  together  as  one  church. 

Drs.  Skinner  and  Allan,  and  Mr.  Brainerd  were 
appointed  a  Committee  of  the  Assembly  to  answer 
the  above  Protests,  and  subsequently  reported  the 
following,  which  was  adopted  and  entered  on  the 
minutes,  viz- 

In  reply  to  the  two  protests  of  the  minority  against  the 


132  THE    PRINCETON 

decision  of  the  Assembly  in  refusing  to  censure  the  first 
edition  of  Barnes'  notes  on  the  Romans,  the  Assembly 
remark  : 

1.  That  by  their  decision  they  do  not  intend  to,  and  do 
not  in  fact,  make  themselves  responsible  for  all  the  phra- 
seology of  Mr.  Barnes  ;  some  of  which  is  not  sufficiently 
guarded  ;  and  is  liable  to  be  misunderstood,  and  which  we 
doubt  not  Mr.  Barnes,  with  reference  to  his  usefulness, 
and  the  peace  of  the  church,  will  modify  so  as  to  prevent, 
as  far  as  may  be,  the  possibility  of  misconception. 

2.  Much  less  do  the  Assembly  adopt  as  doctrines  con- 
sistent with  our  standards,  and  to  be  tolerated  in  our 
churches  the  errors  alleged  by  the  prosecutor  as  contained 
in  the  book  on  the  Romans.  It  was  a  question  of  fact 
whether  the  errors  alleged  are  contained  in  the  book ; 
and  by  the  laws  of  exposition,  in  the  conscientious  exercise 
of  their  own  rights  and  duties,  the  Assembly  have  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  book  does  not  teach  the  errors 
charged.  This  judgment  of  the  Assembly  is  based  on  this 
maxim  of  equity  and  charity,  adopted  by  the  Assembly  of 
1824,  in  the  case  of  Craighead,  which  is  as  follows,  viz. 
a  man  cannot  be  fairly  convicted  of  heresy  for  using  ex- 
pressions which  may  be  so  interpreted  as  to  involve  hereti- 
cal doctrines,  if  they  also  admit  of  a  more  favourable  con- 
struction. "  It  is  not  right  to  charge  any  man  with  an 
opinion  which  he  disavows."  The  import  of  this  is,  that 
when  language  claimed  to  be  heretical,  admits  without  vio- 
lence, of  an  orthodox  exposition,  and  the  accused  dis- 
claims the  alleged  error,  and  claims  as  his  meaning  the 
orthodox  interpretation,  he  is  entitled  to  it,  and  it  is  to  be 
regarded  as  the  true  intent  and  import  of  his  words.  But 
in  the  case  of  the  first  edition  of  the  notes  on  the  Romans, 
the  language  is,  without  violence,  reconcileable  with  an 
interpretation  conformable  to  our  standards  ;  and  therefore 
all  the  changes  of  phraseology  which  he  has  subsequently 
made,  and  all  his  disclaimers  before  the  Assembly,  and  all 
his  definite  and  unequivocal  declarations  of  the  true  intent 
and  meaning  of  his  words,  in  the  first  edition,  are  to  be 
taken  as  ascertaining  his  true  meaning  ;  and  forbid  the 
Assembly  to  condemn  the  book  as  teaching  great  and  dan- 
gerous errors. 

3.  When  the  Assembly  sustained  the  appeal  of  Mr. 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  133 

Barnes,  by  a  majority  of  38,  and  by  a  majority  of  67  re- 
moved the  sentence  of  his  suspension,  and  restored  him  in 
good  standing  to  the  ministry,  it  is  not  competent  for  the 
same  judicature,  by  the  condemnation  of  the  book,  to  in- 
flict on  Mr.  Barnes,  indirectly  but  really,  a  sentence  of 
condemnation,  as  direct  in  its  effects,  and  as  prostrating  to 
his  character  and  usefulness,  as  if  it  had  been  done 
directly,  by  refusing  to  sustain  his  appeal,  and  by  confirm- 
ing the  sentence  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  :  and  what 
this  Assembly  has  declared,  that  it  cannot,  in  equity  or 
consistency,  do  directly,  it  may  not  attempt  to  do  indirectly. 

4.  The  proposed  condemnation  of  Mr.  Barnes'  book,  as 
containing  errors  materially  at  variance  with  the  doc- 
trines of  our  standards,  after  sustaining  his  appeal  and  re- 
storing him  to  good  standing  in  the  ministry,  would  be  a 
direct  avowal  that  great  and  dangerous  errors  may  be  pub- 
lished, and  maintained  with  impunity  in  the  church.  For 
if  the  book  does  in  fact  inculcate  such  errors,  it  was  wrong 
to  attempt  to  destroy  the  book,  and  spare  the  man.  If  the 
charges  are  real,  they  are  not  accidental.  Therefore, 
should  the  Assembly  decide  the  alleged  errors  of  the  book 
to  be  real,  it  would  by  its  past  decision  declare  that  a  man 
suspended  for  great  and  pernicious  errors,  may  be  released 
from  censure,  and  restored  to  an  unembarrassed  standing 
in  the  ministry  ;  a  decision  to  which  this  Assembly  can 
never  give  its  sanction. 

5.  The  attempt  to  condemn  Mr.  Barnes  by  a  condem- 
nation of  his  book,  is  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  maxim 
of  law  that  no  man  shall  be  twice  put  in  jeopardy  for  the 
same  offence  ;  and  if  it  were  otherwise,  the  man  might  be 
tried  in  his  person,  and  tried  on  his  book,  and  the  same 
process  of  specification  and  defence  is  due  to  personal 
and  public  justice. 

6.  So  far  is  the  Assembly  from  countenancing  the  errors 
alleged  in  the  charges  of  Dr.  Junkin,that  they  do  cordially 
and  ex-animo  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  our  church, 
on  the  points  of  doctrine  in  question,  according  to  the  ob^ 
vious  and  most  prevalent  interpretation  ;  and  do  regard  it, 
as  a  whole,  as  the  best  epitome  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Bible  ever  formed.  And  this  Assembly  disavows  any  de-* 
sire,  and  would  deprecate  any  attempt,  to  change  the  phra- 
seology of  our  standards,  and  would  disapprove  of  any 

12 


134  THE    PRINCETON 

language  of  light  estimation  applied  to  them  ;  believing  that 
no  denomination  can  prosper,  "whose  members  permit 
themselves  to  speak  slightingly  of  its  formularies  of  doc- 
trine :  and  are  ready  to  unite  with  their  brethren  in  con- 
tending earnestly  for  the  faith  of  our  standards. 

7.  The  correctness  of  the  preceding  positions  is  con- 
firmed, in  the  opinion  of  the  Assembly,  by  a  careful  analy- 
sis of  the  real  meaning  of  Mr.  Barnes  under  each  charge 
as  ascertained  by  the  language  of  his  book,  and  the  revi- 
sions, disclaimers,  explanations  and  declarations  wrhich  he 
has  made. 

In  respect  to  the  first  charge,  that  Mr.  Barnes  teaches, 
that  all  sin  is  voluntary  ;  the  context  and  his  own  declara- 
tions show  that  he  refers  to  all  actual  sin  merely,  in  which 
he  affirms  the  sinner  acts  under  no  compulsion. 

The  second  charge  implies  neither  heresy  nor  error,  but 
relates  to  the  expression  of  an  opinion  on  a  matter,  con- 
cerning which  no  definite  instruction  is  contained  either 
in  the  Bible  or  in  the  Confession  of  Faith. 

In  respect  to  the  third  charge,  Mr.  Barnes  has  not  taught 
that  unregenerate  men  are  able,  in  the  sense  alleged,  to 
keep  the  commandments,  and  convert  themselves  to  God. 
It  is  an  inference  of  the  prosecutor  from  the  doctrines  of 
natural  ability,  as  taught  by  Edwards,  and  of  the  natural 
liberty  of  the  will,  as  taught  in  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
chap.  ix.  sec.  1.  On  the  contrary,  he  does  teach,  in 
accordance  with  our  standards,  that  man  by  the  fall  hath 
wholly  lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any  spiritual  good  accom- 
panying salvation. 

In  respect  to  the  fourth  charge,  that  faith  is  an  act  of  the 
mind,  Mr.  Barnes  does  teach  it,  in  accordance  with  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  and  the  Bible  ;  but  he  does  not  deny 
that  faith  is  a  fruit  of  the  special  influence  of  the  Spirit,  and 
a  permanent  holy  habit  of  mind,  in  opposition  to  a  created 
physical  essence.  That  faith  "  is  counted  for  righteous- 
ness" is  the  language  of  the  Bible,  and  as  used  by  Mr. 
Barnes,  means  not  that  faith  is  the  meritorious  ground  of 
justification,  but  only  the  instrument  by  which  the  benefit 
of  Christ's  righteousness  is  appropriated. 

In  respect  to  the  fifth  charge,  Mr.  Barnes  no  where  de- 
nies, much  less  sneers  at  the  idea,  that  Adam  was  the 
covenant  and  federal  head  of  his  posterity.     On  the  con- 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  135 

trary,  though  he  employs  not  these  terms,  he  does,  in 
other  language  teach  the  same  truths  which  are  taught  by 
this  phraseology. 

In  respect  to  the  sixth  and  seventh  charges,  that  the  sin 
of  Adam  is  not  imputed  to  his  posterity,  and  that  mankind 
are  not  guilty,  or  liable  to  punishment,  on  account  of  the 
first  sin  of  Adam,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  it  is  not  taught 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed 
to  his  posterity.  The  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  Adam's 
sin,  Mr.  Barnes  affirms,  though  not  as  including  personal 
identity,  and  the  transfer  of  moral  qualities,  both  of  which 
are  disclaimed  by  our  standard  writers,  and  by  the  General 
Assembly, 

In  respect  to  the  8th  charge,  that  Christ  did  not  suffer 
the  penalty  of  the  law  as  the  vicarious  substitute  of  his 
people,  Mr.  Barnes  only  denies  the  literal  infliction  of  the 
whole  curse,  as  including  remorse  of  conscience  and  eter- 
nal death ;  but  admits  and  teaches  that  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  owing  to  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human  nature 
in  the  person  of  the  mediator,  were  a  full  equivalent. 

In  respect  to  the  9th  charge,  that  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  is  not  imputed  to  his  people,  Mr.  Barnes  teaches 
the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  but  not  as 
importing  a  transfer  of  Christ's  personal  righteousness  to 
believers,  which  is  not  the  doctrine  of  our  church:  And 
where  he  says,  that  there  is  no  sense  in  which  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  becomes  ours,  the  context  and  his  own 
declaration  show  that  he  simply  means  to  deny  a  literal 
transfer  of  his  obedience  ;  which,  on  the  contrary,  he 
teaches,  is  so  imputed  or  set  to  our  account,  as  to  become 
the  only  meritorious  cause  or  ground  of  our  justification. 

In  respect  to  the  tenth  charge,  Mr.  Barnes  has  not  taught 
that  justification  consists  in  pardon  only  ;  but  has  taught 
clearly  that  it  includes  the  reception  of  believers  into  fa- 
vour, and  their  treatment  as  if  they  had  not  sinned. 

The  foregoing  Protests  and  Answer,  present  in  a 
condensed  form,  the  merits  of  the  whole  case,  the 
objections  of  the  minority  and  the  grounds  of  the 
decisions  of  the  Assembly ;  and,  as  a  full  examina- 
tion of  the  labored  and  voluminous  arguments  of 


136  the  Princeton 

Mr.  Barnes  and  Dr.  Junkin,  and  of  the  grounds  taken 
by  the  numerous  speakers  in  the  Assembly,  would 
occupy  much  more  space  than  we  can  spare  for  this 
purpose, — and  the  whole  being  before  the  public  in 
the  reports  of  the  New- York  Observer  and  other 
papers,  we  omit  the  debates  altogether,  and  shall 
confine  ourselves  to  a  few  brief  notices  of  some  of 
the  remarks  and  complaints  of  the  Princeton  Re- 
viewers on  the  case. 

1.  The  Reviewers  complain  of  the  strictly  consti- 
tutional course  adopted  by  the  Assembly  in  taking 
the  vote  on  the  naked  question,  "  sustain  or  not  sus- 
tain ?"  This  they  urge  as  evidence  of  an  li  un- 
compromising spirit,"  on  behalf  of  the  majority.  Our 
reply  is  that  this  course  was  adopted  on  the  sugges- 
tion and  urgent  request  of  Dr.  Phillips.  This  the 
Reviewers  admit,  in  their  own  account  of  the  pro- 
ceedings. We  are  not  a  little  surprised,  therefore,  to 
find  them  pursuing  a  long  argument  to  prove  the 
impropriety  of  this  course,  and  attributing  the  blame 
of  it  to  the  uncompromising  spirit  of  the  majority. 
This  position  needs  only  to  be  considered,  to  be  re- 
linquished. 

2.  They  next  dwell,  at  some  length,  and  with 
"disapprobation  and  concern,"  upon  the  ground 
taken  by  that  portion  of  the  Assembly,  which  they 
denominate  the  "Edwardean"  party ;  two  other 
parties  being  the  "  Old  School  and  the  New  Haven? 
They  represent  Mr.  Barnes  as  holding  the  doctrines 
of  the  New  Haven  party,  and  then  loudly  proclaim 
the  inconsistency  of  the  Edwardeans  for  sustaining 
him.  These  "  Gentlemen,"  as  we  have  seen,  abhor 
inconsistency  ;  but  in  the  present  instance  they  have 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  137 

mistaken  the  facts.  Mr.  Barnes  expressly  denied,  in 
his  defence,  that  he  held  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  the 
New  Haven  school,  and  expressed  his  more  general 
accordance  with  the  views  of  the  late  Dr.  Dwight, 
than  with  those  of  any  other  author.  To  a  candid 
reader  also,  we  believe  this  would  be  apparent  from 
his  a  Notes  on  the  Romans,"  as  well  as  from  other 
productions  of  his  pen.  But  what  was  Dwight,  but 
an  Edwardean?  This  numerous  party,  therefore, 
whom  the  Reviewers  compliment  so  highly,  as  to  the 
general  correctness  of  their  doctrines,  have  not  been 
so  inconsistent,  in  this  case,  as  they  are  represented 
to  have  been.  They  have  simply  restored  one  of 
their  own  number  to  his  merited  standing  in  the 
ministry,  who  had  been  cut  off,  for  a  season,  by  the 
violent  assaults  of  another  party  not  more  numerous 
nor  respectable  than  themselves.  AH  of  this  how- 
ever goes  for  nothing  with  the  "Gentlemen  in 
Princeton."  They  will  have  it  that  Mr.  Barnes  is 
a  Taylorite,  and  then  they  proceed  to  treat  the 
majority  of  the  Assembly  as  uNeiv  School  me?i"  and 
to  denominate  them  such,  though  by  their  own 
showing  they  are  almost  all  Edwardeans,  the  New 
Haven  party  being,  as  they  say,  "  very  inconsiderable 
as  to  numbers  /"  Edwards  and  Dwight,  then,  and 
their  followers,  in  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land, 
constituting  a  majority  of  the  Presbyterian  church, 
by  the  authority  of  the  Princeton  Professors,  are  to 
be  regarded  as  New  School  men,  and  the  head  and 
front  of  their  offending,  in  this  case,  is  that  they  have 
allowed  an  inconsiderable  number  of  votes  of  the 
New  Haven  party,  (so  called  at  Princeton,)  to  be 
given  with  their  own,  to  restore  to  the  ministry ,_  one 

12* 


138  THE    PRINCETON 

who  claims  to  be,  and  is  admitted  by  the  Edwardeans 
themselves,  to  be  one  of  their  own  number. 

The  Reviewers  proceed  to  apologize  for  the  oppo- 
sition of  the  "  Philadelphia  brethren"  to  Mr.  Barnes, 
on  the  ground  that  they  have  regarded  him  as  hav- 
ing adopted  the  views  of  Murdock,  Taylor  and  Fitch, 
and  quote  the  "  Unitarian  Examiner,"  the  "  Christian 
Intelligencer  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church,"  and 
the  "  Watchman,  published  at  Hartford,  Connecticut, 
and  edited  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Harvey,"  as  sustaining 
the  above  opinion  of  the  "  Philadelphia  brethren." 
They  then  add,  [page  459,] 

What  must  we  think  of  the  men  who  objected  to  the 
Ci  slightest  censure,"  who  complained  of  Mr.  Barnes,  as 
"  too  orthodox,"  and  especially  what  impression  must 
such  language  as  the  following,  from  the  lips  of  Dr. 
Peters,  make  "  When  I  heard  the  sentence,  I  regarded  it 
as  a  blow  struck  at  one  half  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 
The  doctrines  held  by  brother  Barnes,  he  has  proved  to  be 
substantially  in  accordance  to  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
I  shall  not  vote  to  restore  him  on  the  ground  of  toleration  ; 
he  has  a  right  to  be  a  minister  in  our  connexion.  If  any 
one  is  to  be  tolerated,  it  is  the  prosecutor,  who  says  that 
man  has,  in  no  sense,  ability  to  love  God.  Yes,  sir,  the 
time  has  come,  when  the  question  is,  whether  such  men 
are  to  be  tolerated  in  the  Presbyterian  church  *  *  * 
No  !  sir,  I  do  not  even  condemn  his  indiscretions  !  It  is 
time  to  have  the  question  settled,  whether  in  this  nine- 
teenth century  we  may  not  exercise  the  liberty  of  using 
language  adapted  to  the  age.  I  do  not  only  approve  of 
the  doctrines,  but  of  the  language  employed,  while  I  may 
not  agree  with  every  wrord  spoken  or  written  by  any  man." 
To  hear  such  language  uttered  of  a  book  which  Unitarians 
hail  as  rejecting  the  doctrines  of  original  sin,  the  federal 
headship  of  Adam,  &c.  which  a  standard  paper  in  New 
England  denounces  as  containing  "  sentiments  subversive 
of  the  gospel,"  is  sufficiently  startling ;  and  to  have  it 
virtually  sustained  by  the  General  Assembly  is  still  worse." 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  139 

We  regret  to  be  under  the  necessity  of  showing, 
that  the  language  here  ascribed  to  Dr.  Peters,  was 
neither  "  uttered"  by  him,  nor  "  virtually  sustained 
by  the  General  Assembly."  The  Reviewers  quote 
this  language  from  the  Presbyterian  of  July  2.  That 
paper,  however,  with  us,  is  not  relied  on  for  the  cor- 
rect statement  of  facts  ;  and  to  show  how  greatly  its 
anonymous  reporter  has  erred,  in  the  present  in- 
stance, we  present  the  following  extract  from  the  re- 
marks of  Dr.  Peters,  as  reported  in  the  New- York 
Observer  of  September  17,  which  we  are  assured  are 
correctly  expressed. 

Mr.  Barnes  appeals  to  this  house  from  the  "  definitive 
sentence  suspending  him  from  all  the  functions  proper  to 
the  gospel  ministry."  To  me,  Mr.  Moderator,  that  appears 
to  have  been  a  tremendous  sentence.  It  did  so  appear 
when  the  news  of  it  first  reached  me,  after  the  rising  of 
the  Synod  at  York,  and  the  more  so,  because  I  felt  it  to 
be  a  blow  aimed  at  the  great  body  of  the  Presbyterian 
church.  I  speak  as  a  member  of  that  church,  as  well  as 
of  the  more  extended  community  of  Christ's  disciples  of 
every  name,  of  whom  it  is  declared,  "  If  one  member  suf- 
fers, all  the  members  suffer  with  it ;"  and  exercising  the 
sympathies  of  a  Christian,  I  felt  that  I  would  gladly  have 
divided  with  my  suffering  brother  all  the  reproach  and  suf- 
fering consequent  upon  the  infliction  of  such  a  sentence. 
And  looking  back  upon  that  scene,  after  the  lapse  of  many 
months,  in  which  my  mind  has  often  reverted  to  it  with 
pain  and  anxiety,  I  cannot  but  regard  it  as  a  tremendous  ex- 
ercise of  power,  for  a  Synod,  amid  the  rancor  of  the  debates 
which  have  disgraced  its  records,  and  with  such  confusion 
of  tongues,  to  depose  from  the  gospel  ministry,  by  a  single 
stroke,  a  brother  so  beloved.  There  he  stood,  deservedly 
eminent  among  his  brethren.  He  had  improved  with  un- 
common diligence  the  advantages  afforded  him  of  a  learned 
education,  and  the  providence  of  God  had  thrown  him  into 
one  of  the  largest  spheres  of  usefulness,  had  surrounded 
him  with  sympathies  of  uncommon  extent  and  variety,  and, 


140  THE    PRINCETON 

though  in  the  morning  of  his  ministry,  had  already  given 
him  many  seals  of  his  faithfulness  through  Jesus  Christ. 
But  what  is  he  now?  What  has  he  been  for  the  last 
seven  months  1  By  the  action  of  the  Synod,  from  whose 
sentence  he  appeals,  he  is  a  deposed  minister,  degraded 
before  his  people,  his  family,  and  his  many  friends,  and 
published  to  the  world  as  unworthy  to  hold  a  place  among 
the  ambassadors  of  God  to  guilty  mem  Let  the  brethren 
who  have  been  active  in  producing  this  result,  put  their 
souls  in  his  soul's  stead,  and  they  will  better  understand 
what  is  the  import  of  such  an  excision  from  the  ministry.. 
I  repeat  it,  the  action  of  that  Synod  was  tremendous  in  its 
consequences.  I  look  about  me  with  unspeakable  solici- 
tude and  earnestness  for  the  reasons  of  such  a  decision. 
I  find  them  in  the  records  of  the  court  below.  I  will  not 
go  into  the  controversy  which  agitated  that  body.  After 
having  heard  the  records  of  the  Presbytery,  and  having 
also  read  the  printed  report  of  the  trial  in  the  Synod  with 
shame  and  confusion  of  face,  I  am  fully  of  opinion,  that 
the  prosecutor  failed  there,  as  he  has  here,  to  substantiate 
his  charges.  A  part  of  the  opinions  charged,  Mr.  Barnes 
has  amply  proved,  that  he  did  not  and  does  not  hold,  and 
such  part  of  them  as  he  does  hold,  he  has  proved  with 
equal  clearness  to  be  substantially,  essentially,  and  in  all 
important  particulars,  according  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,, 
however  much  they  differ  from  the  positions  taken  by  the 
prosecutor. 

It  has  been  remarked  by  some  who  have  preceded  me 
in  the  expression  of  their  opinions  on  this  case,  that  the 
doctrines  of  Air.  Barnes  have  been  tolerated  in  the  church 
hitherto,  and  that  the  question  now  is,  whether  they  shall 
be  tolerated  any  longer  ?  Sir,  I  dissent  from  this  phrase- 
ology. I  am  not  going  to  vote  for  the  restoration  of  Mr. 
Barnes,  on  the  ground  of  toleration,  but  on  the  ground  of 
his  essential  agreement  with  the  Confession  of  Faith.  Yes, 
sir,  his  right  to  exercise  the  Christian  ministry  in  the 
Presbyterian  church,  holding  the  sentiments  he  does,  is, 
in  my  opinion,  a  settled  right ;  it  is  a  right  which  is  guar^- 
antied  to  him,  and  to  each  one  of  us,  by  the  conditions  of 
the  compact  under  which  we  exist  as  a  church.  So  long 
as  our  conversation  is  such  as  becometh  the  gospel  of 
Christ,  we  are  bound  by  our    excellent   standards  to  re- 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  141 

ceive  one  another  as  brethren,  notwithstanding-  the  little 
diversities  of  opinion  which  exist  among  us  in  regard  to 
the  minor  points  of  theological  belief.  I  know  not  an 
exception  to  this  rule  in  this  Assembly.  We  are  sub- 
stantially agreed  in  essential  doctrines.  But  whatever 
may  be  the  rights  of  others  in  this  respect,  the  right  of 
Brother  Barnes  to  an  honorable  standing  among  us  is  per- 
fect and  settled,  it  is  founded  in  his  essential  conformity 
to  the  doctrines  laid  down  in  the  standards  of  our  church. 
If  either  of  the  parties  before  us  is  to  exercise  his  minis- 
try on  the  ground  of  toleration,  so  far  as  my  vote  can  settle 
the  question,  it  shall  be  Dr.  Junkin,  who  says  in  the  face 
of  this  Assembly  and  in  the  face  of  reason  and  of  revela- 
tion, that  fallen  man  has  no  ability,  in  any  conceivable 
sense,  to  love  either  God  or  his  fellow  men.  I  would  not 
cast  out  his  name  as  evil  on  account  of  the  avowal  of  such 
a  sentiment,  but  I  would  retain  him  in  the  church,  with 
such  a  doctrine  on  his  tongue,  only  by  toleration,  and 
not  as  one  whose  sentiments  correspond  with  the 
standards  of  our  church. 

A  brother  (Dr.  Phillips)  has  told  us  that  Mr.  Barnes  is 
not  suspended  from  the  exercise  of  his  ministry,  save  in 
our  own  church  connexion:  he  may  still  preach,  if  he 
will,  but  not  as  a  minister  in  our  church.  Is  this,  then, 
to  be  the  usage  of  the  Presbyterian  church?  May  our 
highest  judicatories  proclaim  to  the  world,  and  to  all  other 
denominations  of  Christians,  that  our  decisions  and  even 
our  excommunications  are  not  to  be  respected?  Shall 
we  thus  commend  our  deposed  ministers  to  the  confidence 
of  all  other  denominations,  as  fully  competent  for  the  per- 
fecting of  the  saints  and  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ, 
every  where  but  in  the  Presbyterian  churches?  What 
surprising  acts  of  brotherly  kindness  would  these  be  to 
the  churches  to  whom  we  extend  the  hand  of  Christian 
fellowship!  No,  sir,  I  would  commend  brother  Barnes 
to  the  confidence  of  others,  by  taking  him  to  my  own 
bosom. 

I  will  look  then  not  only  at  a  man's  head,  but  into  his 
heart.  I  will  ask,  to  what  does  he  direct  his  energies 
and  all  his  powers  of  action  ?  what  does  he  live  for  ?  to 
to  what  end  has  he  consecrated  himself?  When  I  put 
Mr.  Barnes  to  this  test,  I  find  that  his  life  has  been  dili- 


142  THE    PRINCETON 

gent  and  useful  above  the  common  lot  even  of  good  men  ; 
that  he  has  "  given  himself  wholly  to  these  things."  I  find 
him  grasping  at  the  noblest  objects  and  studying  diligently 
to  effect  them.  I  find  him  writing  many  books  adapted  to 
the  demands  of  his  age  and  country — rising  early  to  write 
them,  laboring  hard  before  the  dawn  of  the  day  to  pre- 
pare these  very  Notes  on  the  Romans  while  the  members 
of  the  Synod  who  have  condemned  him  were  lying  at  their 
ease  folded  in  the  arms  of  slumber.  Yes,  sir,  this  man 
has  been  at  his  work,  and  about  his  Master's  business, 
while  most  of  us  have  been  sleeping.  And  when  I  look 
at  the  sentiments  contained  in  the  many  productions  of  his 
pen,  I  find  them  in  harmony  with  the  views  of  such  men 
as  Edwards,  and  Dwight,  and  Bellamy,  and  Witherspoon, 
and  others  of  the  same  class — men  whose  names  will  live 
with  honor  when  ours  are  forgotten.  And  shall  I  give  my 
assent  to  have  such  a  man  decapitated  ?  I  would  as  soon 
dig  up  the  bones  of  the  pious  dead  and  hold  them  up  to 
the  scorn  of  the  living,  because  some  eagle-eyed  fault- 
finder in  the  church  had  discovered  that  these  men  of 
blessed  memory  had  said  something  in  their  writings, 
which  might  have  been  better  omitted.  I  cannot  conceiAre 
that  this  would  be  a  greater  offence,  than  to  possess  the 
heart  to  blast  and  to  hand  down  to  infamy  a  brother  so 
beloved — so  useful — so  orthodox — so  pure  in  life,  and  so 
extensive  in  his  influence  for  good. 

It  has  been  said  that  Mr.  Barnes  has  re-inserted  in  his ' 
book  the  very  phrases  which  were  censured  by  the  As- 
sembly of  1831 ;  but  if  it.  was  indiscreet  in  Mr.  Barnes  to 
issue  again  these  phrases  to  the  world,  what  shall  be  said 
of  Dr.  Junkin,  who  has  proscribed  Mr.  Barnes  for  those 
very  doctrines  which,  according  to  that  decision  of  the 
Assembly,  were  declared  not  to  be  grounds  of  prosecution, 
but  to  be  consistent  with  a  high  and  honorable  standing  in 
the  church  ?  No,  sir,  I  would  not  single  out  Mr.  Barnes 
and  condemn  him  as  even  guilty  of  indiscretion.  Who, 
that  has  written  so  much  as  he,  has  not  recorded  some 
sentences  to  be  regretted?  Mr.  Barnes  has  done  this,  and 
has  expressed  his  regret.  More  than  this,  he  has  cor- 
rected, in  the  last  edition  of  his  book  on  the  Romans, 
what  seemed  to  be  indiscreet  in  the  former  impressions  of 
the  work.     Since,  therefore,  he  is  found  substantially  and 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  143 

in  all  the  essential  doctrines  correct  and  orthodox,  I  would 
say,  in  regard  to  any  indiscretions  of  language  which  may 
remain,  "  Let  him  that  is  without  sin  cast  the  first  stone." 
The  true  question  to  be  tried  in  this  prosecution,  it  would 
seem,  is,  whether  we,  speaking  now  in  the  nineteenth 
century,  shall  be  permitted  to  speak  in  the  language  of  the 
nineteenth  century  ;  or  whether  we  must  follow  back  the 
stream  of  time  and  use  the  self-same  phrases  and  utter 
them  with  just  the  same  emphasis  as  were  used  by  our 
fathers  two  hundred  years  ago  ?  Language  changes  with 
the  lapse  of  time.  The  popular  use  of  words  changes  ; 
and  if  a  man  will  at  this  day  write  a  book  for  the  use  of 
children,  he  must  employ  such  language  as  children  can 
comprehend.  I  honor  the  design  of  preparing  a  doctrinal 
book  that  shall  be  divested  of  technical  language  and  hard 
names  ;  and  I  not  only  adhere  to  the  doctrines,  but  for  the 
most  part  to  the  very  language  of  Mr.  Barnes's  book.  I 
will  not,  indeed,  make  myself  responsible  for  all  the  sen- 
timents nor  for  all  the  expressions  which  it  contains  ;  but 
I  doubt  not  I  can  agree  as  well  with  Mr.  Barnes  as  with 
most  of  the  brethren  on  this  floor.  Certain  it  is,  I  differ 
as  much  from  Dr.  Junkin,  as  he  does  from  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  and  perhaps  more.  Yet  I  can  tolerate  him.  I 
have  no  communion  with  that  spirit  which  follows  its 
victim  to  the  last  verge  of  conformity  in  unessential  points 
of  theology.  I  stand  on  the  ground  that  all  true  believers 
are  one  in  heart,  though  they  may  be  diverse  in  language  ; 
and  I  love  to  work  with  them  all.  I  am  prepared  to  extend 
the  hand  of  fellowship  to  other  churches,  and  unite  with 
them  in  rolling  on  the  car  of  the  Redeemer  till  his  trium- 
phant kingdom  shall  fill  the  whole  earth.  I  shall  vote  in  this 
case  without  hesitation.  I  am  prepared  to  record  my  name, 
and  let  it  stand  upon  the  record  of  our  doings  as  long  as  I 
have  either  a  name  or  an  influence  in  the  earth,  for  resto- 
ring this  much  injured  brother  to  his  beloved  office,  to  the 
wide  sphere  of  his  usefulness,  and  to  the  bosom  of  a 
people  who  are  waiting  with  so  much  anxiety  for  his 
return. 

We  have  made  this  extract  longer  than  would 
otherwise  have  been  necessary,  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  the  precise  connexions  and  bearings  of  the 


144  THE    PRINCETON 

several  expressions,  erroneously  reported  in  the 
"  Presbyterian,"  as  quoted  by  the  Reviewers.  Dr. 
Peters,  then,  did  not  say,  "  the  time  has  come,  when 
the  question  is,  whether  such  men  [as  Dr.  Junkin,] 
are  to  be  tolerated  in  the  Presbyterian  church."  Nor 
did  he  say  any  of  the  things  attributed  to  him,  in  the 
manner  represented  by  the  Reviewers.  And,  to  be 
convinced  that  the  General  Assembly  did  not  "vir- 
tually sustain"  such  language,  the  reader  has  only  to 
recur  to  the  Answer  of  the  Assembly  to  the  Protests 
of  Drs.  Phillips  and  Hoge,  as  recorded  on  a  previous 
page.  Dr.  Peters  declared,  not  that  he  approved  of 
the  language  employed,  but  that  Mr.  Barnes  a  has 
recorded  some  sentences  to  be  regretted,  and  has  ex- 
pressed his  regret."  And  to  this  the  Assembly  agree 
in  their  answer  to  the  Protests.     They  say, 

"  That  by  their  decision  they  do  not  intend  to,  and  do 
not  in  fact,  make  themselves  responsible  for  all  the  phrase- 
ology of  Mr.  Barnes,  some  of  which  is  not  sufficiently 
guarded,  and  is  liable  to  be  misunderstood  ;  and  which  we 
doubt  not  Mr.  Barnes,  with  reference  to  his  usefulness 
and  the  peace  of  the  church,  will  modify  so  as  to  prevent, 
as  far  as  may  be,  the  possibility  of  misconception.  Much 
less  do  the  Assembly  adopt  as  doctrines  consistent  with 
our  standards,  and  to  be  tolerated  in  our  churches,  the 
errors  alleged  by  the  prosecutor  as  contained  in  the  book 
on  the  Romans.  It  was  a  question  of  fact  whether  the 
errors  alleged  are  contained  in  the  book;  and  by  the  laws 
of  exposition,  in  the  conscientious  exercise  of  their  own 
rights  and  duties,  the  Assembly  have  come  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  book  does  not  teach  the  errors  charged." 

What  is  there,  in  these  proceedings,  so  "  startling," 
and  "  worse"  than  startling  ?  The  alarm,  then,  ex- 
pressed by  the  Reviewers,  if  real,  is  founded  in  mis- 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  145 

conception  ]  and  in  regard  to  the  expressions  used  by 
Dr.  Peters  and  others,  they  certainly  were  misin- 
formed by  the  "Presbyterian."  But  the  Answer  to 
the  Protest  was  before  them,  and  they  understood 
and  appreciated  its  correctness.     They  say, 

"Is  it  not  wonderful  to  hear  it  [the  answer]  moved  by 
Dr.  Skinner,  seconded  by  Mr.  Duffield,  and  voted,  as  it 
would  seem,  without  dissent,  by  the  whole  majority  ?" 

But  why  is  this  so  wonderful  ?  The  Reviewers 
do  hot  leave  us  in  doubt  on  this  point.  Their  won- 
der is  that  the  "  answer"  is  orthodox  !  How  could 
it  be,  that  such  heterodox  men  as  constituted  "  the 
whole  majority"  of  the  Assembly  should  profess  to  be 
orthodox  ?  But  who  has  proved  the  whole  majority,  or 
any  part  of  it,  to  be  any  otherwise  than  orthodox  7  It 
is  plain,  however,  that  the  Reviewers  thus  regard 
them.  Hence  their  many  and  varied  expressions  of 
alarm.  Yet  they  affirm  that  this  answer  "  goes 
farther  in  support  of  orthodoxy,  and  in  condemning 
new  school  theology,"  [i.  e.  the  theology  of  Edwards, 
which,  by  their  own  showing  is  adopted  by  a  large 
majority  of  what  they  call  the  new  school  party,]  in 
every  form,  than  any  act  of  any  Assembly,  with 
which  we  are  acquainted."     Again,  they  say, 

"  It  cannot  be  that  these  men  are  disingenuous  in  all 
this  ;  that  they  mean  to  '  palter  with  us  in  a  double  sense  ; 
and  keep  the  word  of  promise  to  our  ear  and  break  it  to 
our  hope.'     It  cannot  be." 

At  what  then  are  these  gentlemen  so  much  start- 
led ?  Where  is  the  ground  of  alarm  ?  They  admit 
that  the  answer  is  orthodox,  that  it  was  unanimously 
adopted  by  the  rt  whole  majority  of  the  Assembly," 

13 


146  THE    PRINCETON 

and  that  "these  men"  are  honest  and  sincere  in 
avowing  the  sentiments  which  it  contains  !  Is  there 
anything  "startling/'  and  worse  than  startling  in  all 
this  ?  Or  do  they  mean  to  express  their  surprise  at 
the  stupidity  of  the  Assembly  ?  To  use  their  own 
expression,  "was  the  majority  stultified  ?"  This  they 
more  than  intimate  in  the  following  language. 

"  It  is  currently  reported  that  it  was  Dr.  Beecher,  who 
thus  converted  the  whole  Assembly,  led  them  back  into 
the  strong  holds  of  orthodoxy,  and  then  turned  the  key 
upon  them— that  he  was  the  main  author  of  the  wonderful 
document  presented  by  Dr.  Skinner,  and  adopted  by  the 
majority.  If  this  is  so,  we  owe  him  many  thanks.  It  is 
certainly  the  greatest  exploit  of  his  life." 

Here  is  stultification  with  a  witness !  But  do  the 
Reviewers  really  mean  this  ?  Do  they  believe  that 
u  the  whole  majority"  were  thus  fooled  into  the  adop- 
tion of  the  answer  to  the  protests  1  Or  do  they  speak 
ironically r,  when  they  say,  "  It  cannot  be  that  these 
men  are  disingenuous  in  all  this  V  Do  they  not 
still  believe  that  the  majority  were  insincere  in  this 
act  ?  Do  they  not  mean  to  be  thus  understood, 
when  they  say,  in  another  paragraph,  "  If  they  are 
sincere  in  their  declaration,  then  they  have  struck 
their  flag  and  become  orthodox  ;  if  they  are  not  sin- 
cere, they  must  forfeit  the  confidence  of  every  honest 
man  in  the  community  V  We  confess  that  we  cannot 
understand  what  the  Reviewers  mean  by  these  con- 
flicting expressions,  uttered  with  so  much  facetious- 
ness  ;  and  we  are  constrained  to  regard. the  various 
phases  which  they  exhibit  on  this  subject,  as  trifling 
with  the  character  and  feelings  of  the  honest  and 
orthodox  men  who  composed  the  majority  of  the  last 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  147 

Assembly.  On  the  whole,  it  is  more  than  probable; 
that  the  real  ground  of  the  alarm  expressed  by  these 
gentlemen,  and  by  the  minority,  is  not  that  the  ma- 
jority are  not  orthodox,  but  that  certain  measures,  on 
which  they  had  confidently  relied  to  give  them  a 
permanent  ascendancy  in  the  Assembly,  have  been 
frustrated.  They  are  alarmed  at  the  prospect  of 
their  continuing  to  be  a  minority  of  the  church,  on 
the  questions  of  policy  which  are  agitated,  and  not  at 
any  material  discrepancies  of  doctrinal  belief  between 
themselves  and  their  brethren  of  the  majority.  This 
is  substantially  admitted  in  the  following  language, 
[page  473.] 

"  The  character  of  the  answer  to  the  protests  presented 
by  Drs.  Phillips  and  Hoge  furnishes  a  far  better  index  to 
the  state  of  the  church  than  any  vote  of  the  General  As- 
sembly. That  answer  yields  every  thing,  and  professes 
every  thing,  for  which  the  most  orthodox  have  ever  con- 
tended." And  again,  "  Take  it,  therefore,  either  way,  it 
goes  to  prove  the  soundness  of  the  church." 

The  a  Gentlemen  in  Princeton,"  then  declare  their 
belief  that  the  answer  to  the  protest  is  orthodox,  that 
the  majority  who  adopted  it  are  sincere,  and  that  the 
answer  itself  goes  farther  to  prove  the  soundness  of 
the  church,  than  any  vote  [resolution]  of  the  General 
Assembly  !  Where,  we  ask  again,  is  their  ground  of 
alarm  ?  Why  do  they  complain  that  the  resolution 
of  Dr.  Miller,  condemning  Mr.  Barnes'  book,  was  not 
adopted,  when  the  object  of  that  resolution,  which 
was  to  exhibit  "  the  soundness  of  the  church"  has 
been  so  much  better  secured  by  this  answer,  which  ivas 
adopted,  and  which  "professes  every  thing  for  which 
the  most  orthodox  have  ever  contended  ?"     Surely 


148  THE  PRINCETON 

there  is  nothing  alarming  or  startling:  in  the  fact,  that 

OCT  CT  J 

the  wisdom  of  the  majority  has.  in  this  instance,  sur- 
passed that  of  the  minority,  in  the  choice  of  means 
to  attain  an  object,  upon  which  both  are  equally 
intent. 

Much  complaint  has  been  expressed,  that  the  ma- 
jority, having  rejected  the  resolution  of  Dr.  Miller, 
did  not  then  resume  the  amendment  proposed  by 
Mr.  Labaree.  By  this  omission  it  is  said,  they  left 
the  book  "  without  the  slightest  censure."  But  this 
is  not  the  fact.  On  the  failure  of  Dr.  Miller's  resolu- 
tion, two  protests  were,  at  once,  announced,  and  it 
was  immediately  perceived  by  the  majority,  that, 
in  adapting  the  answer  of  the  Assembly  to  these, 
they  could  express  their  views  of  the  book  with  much 
more  clearness  and  precision,  than  it  would  be  possi- 
ble to  present  them  in  a  single  resolution.  Mr. 
Labaree  was  accordingly  requested  not  to  call  up  his 
resolution,  and  the  answer  was  prepared,  embracing 
all  that  was  expressed  by  that  resolution,  and  fur- 
nishing   ':  a    far  better   index    to   the   state    of  the' 

CT 

church  than  any  vote  of  the  Assembly,"  could  have 
done. 

The  Reviewers  conclude  their  article  with  several 
considerations  to  show  the  impolicy  and  impropriety 
of  any  measures  tending  to  a  division  of  the  church. 
They  say,  [page  476.] 

"  We  cannot  see,  therefore,  how  any  set  of  men  can, 
with  a  good  conscience,  desire  to  effect  the  division  of  the 
church,  until  they  are  called  upon  to  profess  what  they  do 
not  believe,  or  required  to  do  what  they  cannot  approve. 
This,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  is  the  only  principle  which 
can  bear  the  test ;  which  will  acquit  us  in  the  sight  of  God 
and  man,  for  tearing  asunder  that  portion  of  the  church  of 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  149 

Christ  committed  to  our  care.  We  know  not  how  good 
can  result.  Instead  of  producing  peace,  it  will  probably 
increase  discord.  Instead  of  promoting  truth,  it  will 
probably  render  error  triumphant.  Instead  of  advancing 
*  the  interests  of  Presbyterianism,  it  will  probably  destroy 
its  influence." 

With  these  sentiments  we  accord,  as  well  as  with 
most  of  the  considerations  urged  by  the  Reviewers  in 
support  of  them.  We  believe,  with  the  "  Gentlemen 
in  Princeton,"  that,  "  If  the  cordial  and  ex-animo 
adoption  of  the  confession  of  faith,  according  to  its 
obvious  and  most  prevalent  interpretation  is  to  be  the 
test,  we  are  all  sound."  Certainly  this  is  true  of  the 
majority  of  the  last  Assembly,  who  have  thus  de- 
clared their  adoption  of  that  confession.  We  cannot, 
therefore,  believe  that  there  are  sufficient  diversities 
of  doctrine  in  the  church  to  justify  a  division,  and  in 
regard  to  the  mode  of  conducting  the  benevolent 
operations  of  the  church,  since  the  decisions  of  the 
last  Assembly,  none  are  "  required  to  do  what  they 
cannot  approve  ;"  all,  by  these  decisions  are  left  free 
to  pursue  the  work  of  missions  by  such  organizations 
as  they  shall  prefer,  and  that  without  any  sacrifice  of 
principle  or  of  doctrinal  belief.  Here  there  is  no  suffi- 
cient ground  of  separation,  and  we  cannot  conceive 
that  any  occasion  exists  for  such  a  measure,  except- 
ing, [shall  we  say  it  ?]  in  the  lust  of  power,  and  in  the 
unwillingness  of  a  portion  of  the  present  minority  of 
the  church  to  submit  to  the  mildest  and  most  tolerant 
government,  and  the  most  reasonable  and  equitable 
arrangements  in  regard  to  the  benevolent  operations 
of  the  day.  We  agree  then,  with  the  Reviewers  that, 
"If  the  church  is.  to  be  divided,  though  we  disap- 

13* 


150  THE    PRINCETON 

prove  of  the  principle  and  deprecate  the  conse- 
quences, the  responsibility  will  rest  with  those  who 
effect  it." 

The  following  suggestion,  however,  forces  itself* 
upon  us,  in  this  connexion,  and  we  cannot  forbear 
to  ask,,  if  the  "Gentlemen  in  Princeton"  really  desire 
to  perpetuute  the  unity  of  the  church,  how  is  it  that 
they  have  been  led  so  far  astray  in  the  selection  of 
the  means  of  securing  so  desirable  an  object?     In 
the  style  and  language  of  their  attack  upon  that  por- 
tion of  the  church,  from  whose  doings  in  the  late 
Assembly  they  dissent,  there  are  many  things,  which, 
if  it  were  not  for  their  professions  to  the  contrary, 
would  lead  us  to  suppose  that  they  desire  a  division, 
and  intend,  by  their  influence,  to  promote  one.  Why 
else  do  they  accuse  Dr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Barnes  "  of 
asserting  that,  where  they  said  black,  they  meant 
white"  ?      Why   do   they   pronounce    Dr.    Skinner 
"  more  universally  antagonistic  than  any  man  in 
the  church"  ?     And  why  do  they  say  of  Dr.  Peters 
that  "  a  word,  a  nod,  from   this   Right   Reverend 
Father  seems  to  have  been  sufficient,  on  a  late  occa- 
sion, to  reverse  the  judgments,  belie  the  professions , 
and  annul  the  pledges  of  himself  and  all  his  fol- 
lowers" 7*     Why  also  do  they  use  the  many  other 

*  This  last  expression  occurs  in  the  review  of  Mr.. 
Colton's  "  Reasons  for  preferring  Episcopacy"  contained 
in  the  same  number  of  the  "  Repertory''''  with  the  review 
of  the  "  General  Assembly  of  1836."  The  writer  of  this 
article  is  understood  to  be  Mr.  J.  Addison  Alexander,  As- 
sistant Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  in  the  Theological 
Seminary  at  Princeton ;  a  young  gentleman  of  consider- 
able acquisitions  in  his  department,  a  member  of  the 
church,  but  not  a  minister,  nor  a  licensed  preacher  of  the 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  151 

expressions  of  alarm  and  concern,  with  which'their 
Review  abounds,  and  some  of  which  we  have  quoted? 
The  opinions  of  these  gentlemen  have  weight  in  a 
portion  of  the  church,  and  they  were  aware  that  their 
assaults  upon  the  individuals  above  named,  would 
be  lauded  by  certain  partizans  who  have  trained 
themselves  to  say  nothing  but  evil  of  men  who  stand 
in  the  way  of  their  favorite  plans.  They  must  have 
anticipated  that  these  expressions  of  personal  abuse 

gospel ;  of  retiring  habits  and  modest  deportment,  of  whom 
we  have  ever  entertained  and  expressed  a  favorable  opin- 
ion. We  confess,  however,  that,  in  this  instance,  the 
mildness  and  modesty  of  his  pen  are  not  such  as  commend 
themselves  to  our  approbation.  We  say  nothing  of  the 
unfortunate  spirit  of  this  article,  in  general,  but  simply 
present  the  following  paragraph  to  show  the  connexion 
and  bearings  of  the  sentence  which  we  have  quoted.  Mr. 
Colton,  under  a  strange  misconception  of  the  organization 
and  powers  of  the  American  Home  Missionary  Society, 
denominates  it,  in  fact,  though  not  in  form,  an  Episcopal 
Institution,  and  its  Secretary  a  Bishop.  The  Reviewer 
is  so  delighted  with  this  suggestion  that  he  arrests  the 
current  of  his  severity  upon  Mr.  Colton,  and  says,  "  We 
cannot  deny  ourselves  the  pleasure  of  stating  that  this 
very  portion  of  his  book  contains  one  admirable  passage, 
which,  at  the  imminent  risk  of  overrunning  our  allotted 
limits,  we  must  quote  at  length."  Then  follows  this  "ad- 
mirable passage"  of  two  pages  by  Mr..  Colton,  which, 
though  wholly  erroneous  in  sentiment,  is  free  of  personal 
abuse,  and  expressed  in  a  style  which  is  courteous  and 
respectful.     The  Reviewer  adds, 

"  Qur  inference  from  all  this  is  of  course  far  different 
from  that  which  Mr.  Colton  draws  ;  but  we  admit  his  pre- 
mises. If  we  had  doubted  them  before,  the  recent  events 
at  Pittsburgh  would  have  established  sufficiently  the 
Episcopal  character  of  Dr.  Absalom  Peters.  Nor  is  he 
by  any  means  so  lax  in  the  discipline  of  his  enormous 
diocese  as  the  nominal  bishops  whom  Mr.  C.  admires.  A 
word,  a  nod,  from  this  Right  Reverend  Father  seems  to 


152  THE    PRINCETON 

would  be  quoted  and  widely  circulated,  as  they  have 
been,  by  certain  Editors,  who  have  been  encouraged, 
by  the  authority  of  the  Princeton  Professors,  to  assail 
with  still  greater  rudeness  and  severity  the  character 
and  motives  of  the  same  individuals  and  others  asso- 
ciated with  them  in  the  decisions  of  the  Assembly. 
While,  therefore,  Ave  approve  of  the  reasoning  of 
these  gentlemen  against  a  division  of  the  church,  on 
the  ground  of  existing  differences  of  doctrinal  belief, 
or  of  preference  in  regard  to  the  mode  of  conducting 

have  been  sufficient,  on  a  late  occasion,  to  reverse  the 
judgments,  belie  the  professions  and  annul  the  pledges  of 
himself  and  all  his  followers." 

Who  were  his  followers?     The  Reviewers  represent 
the  majority  of  the  last  Assembly  as  such.     By  the  show- 
ing, then,  of  this  young  Professor,  sustained  by  the  "  As- 
sociation of  gentlemen  in  Princeton,"  Dr.  Peters  is  desti- 
tute of  moral  honesty,  and   was   guilty   of  exercising  an 
influence  over  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  at  once  con- 
trolling and  perfidious,  and  that  majority,  in  yielding  to 
his  influence,  were  guilty  of  both  perfidy  and  folly!     This 
is  putting  on  airs,  and  dealing  out  condemnation,  to  a  de- 
gree which  we  had  no  reason  to  expect  from  such  a  source. 
We  regret  that  the  blame  of  so  much  temerity  has  fallen 
to  the  account  of  one  from  whom  the  majority  of  the  church 
that  sustains   him  had  so  much  reason  to  expect  better 
things.     Do  not  all  men  know  that  this  bold  and  reckless 
charge,  uttered  without  proof,  against  such  a  body  of  men, 
is  as  little  deserved  by  them  as  it  is  worthy  of  him  who 
has  uttered  it  ?     And  we  put  it  to  the  young  gentleman, 
as  a  Christian,  and  a  salaried  Professor,  under  the  care 
of  the  Presbyterian  church,  to  whom  the  training  of  our 
young  men  for  the  ministry  is  in  some  measure  commit- 
ted, whether  he  does  not  owe  an  apology  to  the  Christian 
public  for  the  injury  which  he  has  inflicted  upon  himself, 
and   the  cause  which  he  professes  to  serve,  by  the  above 
paragraph?     The  characters  of  the  individuals  assailed, 
it  is  presumed,  are  above  the  reach  of  injury  from  wea- 
pons of  this  sort. 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  153 

missions,  we  regret  that  they  have,  (whether  by  mis- 
take or  intention,)  put  in  operation  a  train  of  influ- 
ences, which  are  producing  evil,  and  that  continually, 
by  strengthening  the  positions  of  those,  whose  avowed 
determination  is  to  effect  a  division.  They  are  with 
them  in  the  support  of  principles  in  regard  to  the 
rights  of  the  minority,  which,  if  persisted  in,  must 
result  in  division  ;  and  with  them  too,  as  we  have 
seen,  in  their  endeavors  to  cast  odium  upon  those 
who  differ  from  them.  These  are  the  influences 
which  have  produced  much  of  the  alienation  and 
strife  which  already  exists  among  us.  We  regret 
them  ;  and  the  u  Gentlemen  in  Princeton,"  if  they  are 
true  to  their  reasonings,  will  regret  them,  when  they 
shall  have  paused  and  contemplated  these  influences 
in  their  necessary  tendency  to  produce  the  very 
"consequences,"  which,  in  their  reaso?iings,  they 
"  deprecate." 

Here  we  had  closed  our  remarks  on  the  Review, 
and  were  deliberating  whether  it  would  be  wise,  and 
for  edification,  to  venture  such  a  suspicion  as  the 
preceding  before  the  public.  But  our  doubts  were 
wholly  removed,  on  receiving  the  Presbyterian  of 
October  15,  containing  a  series  of  resolutions,  occu- 
pying more  than  a  column  in  that  paper,  adopted  by 
the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  at  its  sessions  in 
Monmouth,  October  4th.  These  resolutions  respect 
the  character  of  Mr.  Barnes,  his  •'  Notes  on  the  Ro- 
mans," the  interpretation  of  the  "Confession  of  Faith," 
and  the  decisions  of  the  last  Assembly  on  the  case  of 
Mr.  Barnes  and  the  subject  of  Foreign  Missions,  in 
all  of  which  they  fully  sustain  the  positions  and 
reasonings  of  the  Princeton  Reviewers,  excepting  in 


154  THE    PRINCETON 

regard  to  the  importance  of  preserving  the  unity  of 
the  church  and  the  guilt  of  schism.  On  these  points, 
the  Presbytery  assume  the  ground  of  the  necessity  of 
division,  and  that  too,  for  the  very  same  reasons,  in 
view  of  which  the  Reviewers  had  declared  that  they 
could  not  see  hoio  any  set  of  men  could,  with  a  good 
conscience,  desire  to  effect  a  division.  The  closing 
sentence  of  the  last  resolution  of  the  Presbytery  is  in 
the  following  words,  viz. : 

"  This  Presbytery,  therefore,  do  hereby,  in  the  fear  of 
God,  solemnly  declare  it,  as  their  deliberate  judgment, 
that  they  can  see  no  prospect  of  our  being  able  to  accom- 
plish the  great  objects  for  which  the  church  was  founded, 
and  for  which  christian  fellowship  ought  to  be  cherished, 
by  the  continuance  of  the  discordant  parts  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church  in  one  body." 


Here  is  the  necessity  of  division  declared  by  the 
'•'  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick"  !  But  who  are 
the  leading  members  of  this  Presbytery  7  The  asso- 
ciated "  Gentlemen  in  Princeton,"  who  conduct  the 
'•' Biblical  Repertory"  !  Can  it  be  that  these  gentle- 
men, in  the  short  period  of  two  and  a  half  months 
have  changed  their  ground,  and  have  determined,  in 
October,  to  advocate  the  measure,  which,  in  July, 
they  declared,  "  instead  of  producing  peace,"  would 
probably  increase  discord  ;  ';  instead  of  promoting 
truth,"  would  "  probably  render  error  triumphant"? 
Can  it  be,  that  the  "  Gentlemen  in  Princeton,"  after 
having  pledged  themselves,  before  the  church  and 
the  world,  as  the  friends  of  union,  are  now  the  advo- 
cates of  division  ?  We  confess  that  we  cannot  tell. 
Yet  the  resolutions  of  the  Presbytery  are  officially 
declared  to  have  been  "  unanimously  adopted"  and 


REVIEWERS    REVIEWED.  155 

the  "  Gentlemen  in  Princeton"  are  members  !  And 
some  of  them,  we  are  assured,  were  present !  What 
ground  these  gentlemen  will  assume,  in  the  next  No. 
of  the  Repertory,  we  are  utterly  at  a  loss  to  conjec- 
ture. One  of  them,  however,  as  we  shall  show,  in 
the  next  chapter,  is  as  unequivocally  pledged  before 
the  public,  "  in  some  way  or  other"  to  produce  a 
division  of  the  church,  as  the  "  Association,"  collec- 
tively, are  pledged,  by  the  reasonings  of  the  last  "  Re- 
pertory," to  promote,  by  all  means,  its  continued 
union  and  integrity. 


156 


CHAPTER    X. 

Remarks  on  The  Secret  Circular,  and  the  Pub- 
lished Pamphlet  of  a  Committee  of  a  small 
minority  of  the  last  General  Assembly,  propo- 
sing a  division  of  the  Church. 

Having  concluded  our  examination  of  the  positions 
defended  by  the  "  Gentlemen  in  Princeton,"  our  at- 
tention is  arrested  by  a  Pamphlet  of  forty-one  pages 
over  the  signatures  of  Drs.  W.  W.  Phillips,  Joseph 
McElroy,  John  Breckinridge,  W.  A.  McDowell,  and 
Messrs.  Francis  McFarland,  George  Potts,  and  John 
M.  Krebs,  ministers,  and  Messrs.  Henry  Rankin, 
Hugh  Auchincloss  and  James  Lenox,  elders,  and 
addressed  to  the  "  Ministers,  Elders,  and  Members 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States" 
The  following  is  the  introductory  paragraph,  viz.  . 

"At  a  meeting1  of  those  members  of  the  last  General 
Assembly,  who  had  voted  in  favor  of  the  resolution  intro- 
duced by  Dr.  Miller,  condemning  the  errors  contained  in 
Barnes'  Notes  on  the  Romans,  held  at  Pittsburgh,  in  May, 
1836,  agreeably  to  a  call  through  the  Moderator,  the  un- 
dersigned were  appointed  a  Committee  to  prepare  and 
circulate  a  suitable  publication  on  the  state  of  the  church, 
and  particularly  on  the  two  great  subjects  which  had  occu- 
pied the  attention  of  the.  Assembly,  viz  :  the  Barnes  Case, 
and  the  Foreign  Missionary  Question." 

This  pamphlet  was  issued  about  the  last  of  Au- 
gust. It  was  preceded,  however,  by  a  secret  circular , 
over  the  signatures  of  the  same  "  Committee,"  dated 


PROPOSED    DIVISION    OF    THE    CHURCH.  157 

New- York,  July  13,  1836.  This  circular  was  ad- 
dressed, in  a  confidential  way,  to  numerous  indi- 
viduals, both  ministers  and  laymen,  supposed  to  be 
displeased,  (or  capable  of  being  rendered  so,)  with 
the  decisions  of  the  last  Assembly,  and  was  not  seen 
by  others,  until  it  providentially  fell  into  the  hands 
of  a  correspondent  of  the  "  Philadelphia  Observer," 
by  wham  it  was  forwarded  to  that  paper  and  pub- 
lished on  the  15th  of  September.  It  asks  attention 
to  the  proceedings  of  the  last  Assembly,  and  con- 
cludes with  a  series  of  questions  addressed  to  each  of 
the  selected  individuals  as  follows,  viz.— 

And,  now  dear  brother,  in  view  of  the  whole  subject, 
we  ask  you,  What  ought  to  be  done?  That  we  may  be 
put  fully  in  possession  of  your  views,  without  at  this  time 
expressing  any  of  our  own,  we  would  respectfully  ask  you 
the  following  questions  : — 

1 .  With  so  great  diversity  of  sentiment  in  regard  to 
doctrine  and  order  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  can  we 
continue  united  in  one  body,  and  maintain  the  integrity  of 
our  standards,  and  promote  the  cause  of  truth  and  righteous- 
ness in  the  earth? 

2.  If  you  think  we  can,  then  please  to  say  how  the 
causes  that  at  present  distract  us  can  be  removed. 

3.  Do  you  believe  that  there  are  ministers  in  our  con- 
nection who  hold  errors,  on  account  of  which  they  ought 
to  be  separated  from  us  ? 

4.  If  you  think  such  errors  are  held,  please  to  name  them 
particularly  ? 

.  5.  If  you  believe  that  persons  holding  the  errors  you 
name,  ought  to  be  separated  from  our  communion,  what  in 
your  judgment  is  the  best  way  of  accomplishing  it  ? 

6.  It  was  repeatedly  avowed  by  ministers  in  the  last 
General  Assembly,  that  they  received  the  Confession  of 
Faith  of  our  Church  only  "  for  substance  of  doctrine" 
— "  as  a  system" — or  "  as  containing  the  Cavinistic  sys- 

14 


158  PROPOSED    DIVISION 

tern  in  opposition  to  the  Arminian,"  &c. — hence  we 
know  how  much  of  our  Standards  they  adopt  and  how 
much  they  reject.  Is  this,  in  your  opinion,  the  true  in- 
tent and  meaning  of  "receiving  and  adopting  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  V 

7.  It  is  believed  by  many  that  much  of  the  evil  of 
which  we  now  complain,  has  come  upon  us  in  conse- 
quence of  our  connection  with  Congregational  churches 
within  our  bounds,  and  represented  in  our  judicatories. 
We  would  ask  you  whether,  in  your  judgment,  it  would 
not  be  better  for  us  as  a  Church,  to  have  no  other  con- 
nection with  Congregationalists  than  the  friendly  one 
which  we  now  have  with  them  as  corresponding  bodies  ? 

You  are  earnestly  entreated,  dear  brother,  to  give  a 
serious  and  speedy  answer  to  these  inquiries.  It  is  of 
vast  importance  to  our  beloved  Church  that  we  should 
have  embodied,  as  soon  as  practicable,  the  views  of 
judicious  thorough  Presbyterians  of  our  connection,  as 
the  best  index  in  regard  to  the  course  that  ought  to  be 
pursued. 

To  be  convinced  that  this  letter  was  intended  to 
prepare  the  way  for  a  division  of  the  church,  we  have 
only  to  recur  to  the  pamphlet  before  named.  Here 
we  find  the  same  individuals,  in  a  little  more  than  a 
month  after  the  date  of  the  letter  containing  the  above 
confidential  inquiries,  openly  and  avowedly  advoca- 
ting division,  and  laboring  to  convince  all  the  dis- 
affected that  it  is  their  solemn  duty,  if  possible,  by 
all  means  to  produce  the  dismemberment  of  all  who 
sympathize  with  the  decisions  of  the  last  Assembly. 
They  say, 

"  That  creeds,  confessions  of  faith,  to  answer  their 
true  and  legitimate  purpose,  must  be  honestly  received. 
And  here  we  are  constrained  to  believe  is  one  fruitful 
source  of  our  present  distractions  as  a  church,  a  lack  of 
honesty  in  the  reception  of  our  standards.  Some  examine 
these  standards  with  care — they  compare  them  with  the 


OF    THE    CHURCH.  159 

scriptures  of  truth  on  which  they  profess  to  be  founded— 
they  scan  narrowly  the  language  used  in  them,  and  having 
done  so,  they  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  all  the  doctrines 
they  contain.  Without  laying  any  claim  to  infallibility, 
or  pretending  to  judge  those  who  may  differ  from  them, 
they  proclaim  to  the  world  that  the  Confession  of  Faith 
of  this  Church  is  their  confession  of  faith.  They  feel 
themselves  solemnly  bound,  as  by  an  oath,  to  adhere  to 
this  form  of  sound  words,  and  to  publish  no  doctrines 
either  inconsistent  or  at  variance  with  it.  This  course 
they  pursue  as  honest  men.  There  are  others,  however, 
who  view  this  matter  in  a  very  different  light,  and  who 
act  a  very  different  part.  Although  they  have  professed  to 
receive  our  standards  in  the  same  manner  with  the  class 
just  referred  to,  they  do  not  consider  themselves  bound  by 
that  act  to  receive  all  the  doctrines  contained  in  them  ;  nor 
to  construe  the  language  in  which  they  are  expressed,  in 
the  sense  in  which  it  was  manifestly  employed  by  those 
who  framed  them." 

Again.  "  Under  the  name  and  cloak  of  Presbyterianism 
they  disseminate  sentiments  which  lead  directly  to  Ar- 
minianism,  Pelagianism  and  Socinianism.  These  are  the 
men  who,  in  our  judgment,  have  caused  divisions  among 
us — for  we  are  a  divided  church — as  really  divided  as 
though  we  were  called  by  different  names  and  existed 
under  different  organizations.  The  schism  has  come  al- 
ready, and  let  those  men  who  have  come  into  our  church 
by  professing  to  receive  our  standards,  when,  in  fact, 
they  did  not  believe  them  in  their  plain  and  obvious 
import,  answer  for  it — for  they  are  its  authors." 

After  a  few  general  remarks,  including  the  above 
extract,  the  u  Committee"  spread  before  their  readers 
every  official  document,  in  existence,  which  is  un- 
favourable to  Mr.  Barnes  '  or  his  publications,  but 
suppress  every  thing  in  his  favor,  excepting  the  re- 
solutions of  the  General  Assembly  of  1831.  First, 
they  give  at  length  the  resolutions  of  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia  in  1830,  censuring  the  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia  for  having  received  Mr.  Barnes  as  a 


160  PROPOSED    DIVISION 

member,  against  the  remonstrances  of  a  minority 
Secondly  a  long  series  of  resolutions  adopted  by  the 
disarfected  Presbytery.  Thirdly,  they  introduce 
with  an  expression  of  disapprobation  the  resolutions 
of  the  Assembly  of  1831,  removing  the  censure  of  the 
Presbytery  from  Mr.  Barnes'  Sermon,  entitled  the 
"  Way  of  Salvation.''1  Then  comes  Dr.  Junkin's 
Charges  and  proofs,  occupying  ten  pages  of  the 
Pamphlet.  Then,  omitting  entirely  the  decision  of 
the  Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  acquitting 
Mr.  Barnes,  with  the  reasons  of  it,  they  publish,  at 
length  the  decision  of  the  Synod,  suspending  him 
"  from  all  the  functions  proper  to  the  gospel  minis- 
try." In  all  this  they  are  careful  to  withhold  from 
their  readers  every  word  of  Mr.  Barnes7  Defencer 
and  to  suppress  entirely  the  resolutions  of  his  Pres- 
bytery in  1835  and  oi  the  General  Assembly  of  1836, 
acquitting  him  !  They  hold  him  up  as  under  the 
unmitigated  censure  of  his  prosecutor  and  of  the 
single  judicatory  who  condemned  and  suspended 
him.  Then  come  the  Protests  of  Drs.  Phillips  and 
Hoge,  but  the  Answer  of  the  Assembly  to  those  pro- 
tests is  omitted,  excepting  a  few  sentences  of  it,  on 
which  the  "  Committee"  remark,  and  pronounce  it 
u  the  most  painful  and  humiliating  part  of  the  whole 
proceedings  in  the  case  ?"  They  then  proceed  to 
quote  the  language  of  Drs.  Skinner  and  Peters  and 
others,  in  the  same  garbled  form,  in  which  it  is  pre- 
sented in  the  Princeton  Review,  and  which  we  have 
corrected  in  a  previous  chapter,  and  conclude  their 
remarks  on  the  M  Answer  to  the  Protest"  as  follows: — 

"  We  must  be  excused,  if  we  express  our  fears  that  it 
is  only  a  miserable  attempt  to  deceive  the  church  and  the 


OF    THE    CHURCH.  161 

world,  as  to  the  real  sentiments  of  those  who,  though  in 
our  church,  have  no  sympathies  with  us  as  Presbyterians." 

Having  presented  the  case  with  so  much  candor 
and  impartiality,  as  we  have  seen,  (and  they  profess 
a  great  deal  of  both,)  the  Committee  declare  that  they 
discover,  in  the  whole  course  pursued  by  Mr.  Barnes, 
"  the  absence  of  that  frankness  and  candor,  that 
should  always  characterize  the  minister  of  the  gos- 
pel !  !"  They  then  speak  of  the  prosecutor,  Dr. 
Junkin,  in  contrast  with  the  above,  and  say,  "  we 
know  him  personally,  and  believe  him  to  be  an  hum- 
ble, modest,  faithful,  and  devoted  servant  of  Christ. 
"  in  whom  there  is  no  guile  !  /"  What  a  contrast ! 
How  frank  and  candid  and  impartial  is  this  decision  ! 
And  as  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  who  suspended 
Mr.  Barnes,  and  the  violence  of  whose  proceedings 
on  that  occasion  have  been  contemplated  with  so 
much  shame  and  sorrow  by  the  churches,  the  "  Com- 
mittee" remark,  that, 

"Looking  at  the  embarrassments  of  the  position  in 
which  they  were  placed,  and  the  provocation  that  was 
given  them  by  the  doings  of  the  Assembly's  Second 
Presbytery,  it  is  to  us  matter  of  surprise  that  so  little 
human  weakness  and  human  passion  is  apparent  in  their 
proceedings." 

What  candor  and  fairness  !  Mr.  Barnes  and  Dr, 
Junkin,  the  Presbytery  and  the  Synod  are  nothing 
to  them  !  They  are  a  "  Committee"  to  guard  the 
purity  of  the  church  !  Who  would  not  wish  to  be 
judged  by  men  who  hold  scales  so  even,  and  weigh, 
with  so  much  accuracy,  the  spirits  of  men  ? 

The   "  Committee*'  proceed,   with  equal  candor, 

14* 


162  PROPOSED    DIVISION- 

"  to  notice  very  briefly  the  second  great  subject  that 
occupied  the  attention  of  the  last  Assembly,  viz — the 
Foreign  Missionary  question."  Here  they  present, 
at  full  length,  the  resolutions  of  the  Assembly  of 
1835,  the  "  terms  of  agreement"  between  the  com- 
mittee of  that  Assembly  and  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh, 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  ]  836,  of  which  Dr. 
Phillips  was  chairman,  and  the  Protest  of  Dr.  Miller 
and  others  against  the  decision  of  the  Assembly  ;  but 
not  one  word  do  they  furnish  us  of  the  Answer  of 
the  Assembly  to  that  protest,  and  in  their  account 
of  the  "discussions"  of  the  Assembly,  they  actually 
compress  the  arguments  of  the  majority  into  the 
space  of  seventeen  lines  of  their  largest  type,  and 
eight  of  these  lines  are  occupied  by  their  own  re- 
marks in  opposition  to  the  arguments  presented  in 
the  other  nine  !  !  Such  men  for  justice,  we  have 
seldom  met  in  controversy  ! 

On  the  whole,  this  pamphlet  is  an  extraordinary 
production.  Its  authors,  though  appointed  "to  pre- 
pare and  circulate  a  suitable  publication  on  the  state 
of  the  Church"  did  not  forget  that  they  were  a 
"  committee"  of  the  minority  of  the  Assembly,  and  of 
only  that  portion  of  the  minority  too,  who,  with  the 
moderator  at  their  head,  were  willing,  under  strong 
and  confidential  pledges,  in  a  confidential  meeting,  to 
set  themselves  about  the  fearful  business  which  is 
here  commenced,  the  dismemberment  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  !  They  seem  therefore  to 
have  felt  constrained  to  suit  their  publication  to  that 
portion  of  the  church  [small  may  it  ever  be,]  who  by 
their  pledges  at  Pittsburgh  and  their  answers  to  the 
secret  Circular,   had  given  their  "Committee"  as- 


OF    THE    CHURCH.  163 

surances  of  their  support  in  the  positions  which  they 
have  assumed.  Therefore  it  is  that  these  gentlemen 
have  felt  encouraged,  in  their  professed  exhibition  of 
the  true  "  state  of  the  church/'  to  suppress  almost 
every  document  and  argument,  on  which  the  ma- 
jority rely  for  their  justification  before  a  candid  and 
discerning  public,  and  then  to  make  their  appeal  to 
party  prejudice.  Hence,  having  represented  the  ma- 
jority of  the  church  as  a  "party?  a  "  party  of  foreign 
origin" — "of  Congregational  prepossessions" — "  who, 
in  principle  and  feeling,  are  opposed  to  our  whole 
system  of  doctrines  and  government" — a  "  party 
who  have  come  in  among  us  by  stealth,"  &c, 
they  make  their  address  to  another  party,  which, 
if  it  did  not  exist,  they  would  hope  to  create,  and 
say, 

"Fathers,  Brethren,  Fellow-Christians,  whatever  else 
may  be  dark,  this  is  clear,  we  cannot  continue  in  the 
same  body.  We  are  not  agreed,  and  it  is  vain  to  attempt 
to  walk  together.  That  those  who  we  regard  as  the 
authors  of  our  present  distractions  will  retrace  their  steps 
is  not  to  be  expected ;  and  that  those  who  have  hitherto 
rallied  around  the  standards  of  our  church  will  continue 
to  do  so,  is  both  to  be  expected  and  desired.  In  some 
way  or  other,  therefore,  these  men  must  be  separated 
from  us." 

After  confessing  that  they  feel  at  a  loss  to  suggest, 
in  what  manner  or  at  what  time  this  separation  "  is 
to  be  effected"  they  add, 


"  In  conclusion. — To  those  who  agree  with  us  in  the 
general  views  thrown  out  in  this  paper,  we  would  say — 
be  firm.  Let  not  the  temporary  triumph  of  error,  a 
triumph  achieved  through  unrighteous  means,  dishearten 
you.      *********     * — be  firm  then. 


164 


PROPOSED    DIVISION 


We  would  say  to  you  also— be  wary.     Suffer  not  your- 
selves to  be   imposed  upon  by  professions  of  Orthodoxy,! 
which  are  shown  to   be  false  by  the  acts  of  those  who 
make  them.     Let  not  the  cry  of  '  peace,'  'peace,'  raised 
by  men  who  have   disturbed  the  peace  of  our  church,  by 
trampling  on  her  purity,  mislead  you.     ****** 
And  particularly  we   would  say  to   you— abide  at   your 
posts.     In  a  crisis  like  the  present,  for  the  sake  of  ease, 
for   the  sake  of  quiet,  let  no  man  seek  a  connexion  with 
other   ecclesiastical  bodies,  because  by  them  sound  doc- 
trine is  loved,  and  healthful  dicipline  maintained.     This 
were  indeed  an  inglorious  business,  most  unkind  to  those 
who  have  hitherto  stood  side  by  side  with  you  in  defence 
of  the   truth,  and  a  criminal  desertion  of  the  church  you 
have  loved,  and  which,  perhaps,  has  cherished!  you,  in 
the  hour  of  her  need." 

Here  then  all  disguise  is  thrown  off.  and  the  object 
suggested  in  the  secret  circular  is  openly  avowed. 
This  is  probably,  the  second  step  determined  on  by  the 
confidential  meeting  of  the  disaffected  members  of 
the  last  General  Assembly,  held  in  Pittsburgh  imme- 
diately after  the  dissolution  of  that  body.  We  are 
not  ignorant  of  the  proceedings  of  that  meeting-. 
Scarcely  had  the  Moderator  pronounced  the  solemn 
"benediction,"  after  declaring  the  Assembly  dis- 
solved, when  Dr.  Miller  began  to  announce  a  meeting 
&c,  but,  as  if  memory  had  suddenly  suggested  some 
impropriety  in  what  he  was  about  to  say,  he  stopped 

t  How  accordant  to  this  would  it  be  to  add,  "  Beware  of  that  charily 
which    thmk^-th  no  evil  .''—Think  only  evil  !" 

t  What  an  appeul  to  the  beneficiaries  of  the  Education  ami  Missionary 
Boards  of  the  Assembly!  Coming  as  it  does  from  the  Secretaries  of 
both,  must  it  nor  be  heeded  ?  "  The  church  which  has  cherished  you  '" 
Can  it  be  that  these  gentlemen,  with  their  associate,  the  professor  at 
Princeton,  intend  to  remind  the  young  men  under  their  care,  that  the 
0ujeCt,0mI"ei''  toWMPgj*  <0  sustain  tl  e  party  which  has  cherished 
them  ?  This  is^a  wide  departure  from  the  example  cf  the  Moravian* 
so  mu-h  admired  in  that  insti  ution,  who  "would  reform  the  world,  but 
are  careful  hjw  they  quarrel  with  it." 


OF    THE    CHURCH.  165 

abruptly  in  the  midst  of  his  announcement,  and  re- 
minded the  Moderator  of  the  duty  devolving  on  him 
by  the  appointment  or  request  of  a  meeting  held  at 
Mr.  Blythe's  church  the  evening  before.  The  Mo- 
derator then  announced  that  all  the  individuals  icho 
had  been  present  at  the  meeting  in  the  basement  of 
Mr.  Bit/ 1 he's  church,  the  preceding  evening,  v;ere 
expected  to  attend  a  similar  meeting  at  the  same 
place  that  afternoon  at  three  o'clock ! 

To  such  of  the  majority  as  had  been  apprised  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  previous  meeting,  referred  to, 
this  appeared  to  be  an  extraordinary  transaction. 
Some  of  us  had  been  informed,  on  authority  entitled 
to  full  credit,  that,  at  that  meeting,  the  question  of  a 
division  of  the  church  had  been  discussed,  and  for 
this  purpose  it  was  proposed  that  another  Convention 
be  called  similar  to  that  assembled  in  Pittsburgh  in 
1835.  This,  however,  was  objected  to  by  some  of 
the  more  cautious,  and,  at  their  suggestion,  after 
considerable  discussion,  it  was  agreed  that  it  would 
be  much  the  wisest  plan  to  appoint  a  confidential 
committee  of  correspondence,  to  write  to  such  mini- 
sters and  elders  in  all  parts  of  the  church  as  were 
known  to  sympathize  with  them,  and  urge  them  to 
use  all  their  influence  to  secure  the  appointment  of 
such  delegates  to  the  next  Assembly,  as  might  be  de- 
pended on  to  favor  the  views  of  the  present  minority. 
The  committee  were  also  to  be  instructed  to  keep 
their  correspondence  out  of  the  newspapers,  as  long 
as  possible,  and  exert  their  influence  secretly,  until 
they  should  judge  it  expedient  to  avow  their  purpose. 
Then,  instead  of  having  another  "  Pittsburgh  Con- 
vention" publicly  called,  the  prevalent  opinion  was, 


166  PROPOSED     DIVISION 

that  it  would  be  best  to  have  such  individuals  as  the 
committee  might  designate,  meet  at  Philadelphia,  as 
if  by  common  consent,  a  day  or  two  before  the  meet- 
ing of  the  next  General  Assembly,  and  there  hold  a 
conference  as  to  the  measures  proper  to  be  adopted 
by  the  party.  If  it  should  then  appear,  from  the  re- 
port of  the  confidential  committee,  that  they  might 
calculate  on  a  majority,  they  would  proceed  and  adopt 
such  measures  as  they  desired,  but  if  they  should 
find  themselves  a  minority  still,  it  was  suggested 
that  they  might  then  determine  to  retire  from  the 
meeting  of  the  majority,  and  call  themselves  the 
General  Assembly,  and  proceed  accordingly ! 

Apprized,  as  we  were,  of  the  foregoing  discussions 
and  suggestions,  it  seemed  to  us  extraordinary  that 
the  Moderator,  Mr.  Witherspoon,  who  was  known 
to  have  been  present  at  the  meeting  on  the  previous 
evening,  should  allow  himself,  in  this  public  manner, 
(having  just  pronounced  a  benediction,  in  which  he 
expressed,  with  apparent  sincerity  and  solemnity,  his 
desire  that  the  church  might  be  saved  from  distrac- 
tion and  preserved  in  perfect  peace  and  unity,)  to  be 
made  use  of  as  the  organ  of  convening  another  meet- 
ing to  perfect  the  divisive  measures  before  suggested. 
The  meeting  however  was  convened,  according  to 
his  announcements,  but  of  what  was  said  and  done, 
within  its  enclosures,  we  are  wholly  ignorant ;  ex- 
cepting so  far  as  its  decisions  have  been  indicated  by 
what  has  since  transpired  ;  and  this  leaves  us  in  no 
doubt  as  to  their  substantial  accordance  with  the 
suggestions  of  the  previous  evening.  Soon  after  the 
meeting  was  dissolved,  and  the  members,  with  others, 
were  preparing  for  their  return  to  their  homes,  Mr. 


OF    THE    CHURCH.  167 

Witherspoon  remarked  to  a  gentleman,  who  accosted 
him  on  the  subject  of  the  meeting,  "  The  die  is  cast  ; 
the  church  is  to  be  divided."  Since  that  a  letter 
from  Mr.  Witherspoon  has  been  seen,  which  ex- 
presses the  same  sentiment.  The  newspapers,  also, 
which  are  the  organs  of  the  party,  have  been  con- 
stantly breathing  suspicion  and  suggesting  and  ad- 
vocating division.  But  the  confidential  committee 
were  silent  and  unknown  to  the  public  until  the 
issuing  of  their  pamphlet,  which  has  waked  the  party 
papers  to  a  bolder  tone  of  advocacy  on  behalf  of  divi- 
sion ;  and  by  some  a  Convention  for  this  purpose,  to 
meet  immediately  preceding  the  meeting  of  the  next 
General  Assembly,  is  boldly  and  strenuously  urged. 
In  the  mean  time,  while  the  attention  of  the  major- 
ity of  the  churches  is  attracted,  by  these  public 
announcements,  as  if  the  committee  had  now  finished 
their  work,  they  are  doubtless  urging  on  their  con- 
fidential correspondence,  with  a  view  to  procure,  if 
possible,  a  majority  in  the  next  General  Assembly 
who  shall  be  pledged  to  reverse  the  decisions  of  the 
last. 

This  state  of  things,  we  confess,  is  sad  and  mourn- 
ful beyond  expression.  Such  a  conspiracy  against 
the  salutary  and  healthful  exercise  of  the  rights  and 
duties  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  was  not  to  be  ex- 
pected, and  can  only  be  deplored.  We  would  gladly, 
therefore,  have  withheld  the  preceding  statement  of 
facts  from  the  churches,  were  it  not  that  they  seem 
to  us  to  be  fraught  with  dangers,  of  which  the 
churches  cannot  be  safely  left  in  ignorance.  Have  not 
the  churches  and  the  Presbyteries  something  to  do, 
to  arrest  the  progress  of  these  desolating  evils  ?     We 


168  PROPOSED     DIVISION 

leave  the  question  upon  the  conscience  of  every  min- 
ister, every  elder  and  every  member  of  the  church, 
reminding  them,  and  endeavouring  to  feel,  ourselves, 
that,  in  such  a  crisis,  our  only  help  is  in  God. 

We  cannot  more  fully  express  our  own  views  of 
the  nature  and  tendency  of  this  whole  transaction 
than  by  quoting  the  following  from  the  remarks  of 
the  Correspondent  of  the  "  Philadelphia  Observer," 
before  referred  to,  accompanying  the  publication  of 
the  secret  circular  of  the  confidential  commiteee,  viz, 

"  2.  The  tendency  of  the  letter  is  to  invite  crimination, 
and  to  perpetuate  alienation  and  contention.  What  does 
it  ask  of  each  man  to  whom  it  is  sent  ?  Does  it  ask  him 
to  cherish  feelings  of  love  and  charity  towards  his  minis- 
terial brethren  around  him  ?  Does  it  conjure  him  to  seek 
their  aid  and  co-operation  in  endeavouring  to  advance  the 
kingdom  of  the  Redeemer,  and  to  promote  pure  and  unde- 
fined religion  ?  Does  it  implore  him  to  lay  aside  any  un- 
founded suspicions  which  he  may  have  cherished  respect- 
ing the  piety,  the  honesty,  and  the  orthodoxy  of  brethren 
in  the  same  communion  ?  No.  It  asks  of  every  man  to 
look  over  the  whole  circle  of  his  ministerial  acquaintance  ; 
to  put  his  memory  and  his  invention  upon  the  rack  ;  to 
form  in  his  own  mind  charges  of  heresy  against  ministers 
of  the  Son  of  God,  and  to  report  them  secretly  to  this 
committee  with  a  view  to  further  action.  Every  man  to 
whom  the  letter  is  sent,  is  tenderly  invited  to  become  a 
spy  upon  his  brethren  ;  to  give  form  and  substance  to  all 
his  suspicions;  to  put  his  own  construction  upon  his 
brother's  sentiments  ;  to  report  them  to  the  committee  ; 
and  to  become  pledged  over  his  own  hand  that  such  brethren 
ought  to  be  cut  off  from  the  Presbyterian  Church.  If 
thus  pledged,  it  is  assumed  that  he  will  act  for  it,  and  vote 
for  it,  when  the  effort  shall  be  made  to  expurgate  the 
church. 

How  extensively  this  letter  breathing  suspicion,  and 
inviting  crimination  has  been  circulated,  no  man  can  tell, 
except  the  committee  and  they  who  are  with  them  in  the 


OF    THE    CHURCH.  169 

Secret  and  dishonorable  plan.  I  have  heard  of  it  from  the 
North  and  the  West.  Few  probably  have  gone  East ;  the 
South,  doubtless,  is  flooded.  It  is  to  be  presumed,  how- 
ever, that  its  circulation  has  been  at  least  co-extensive 
with  the  signers  of  the  "  Act  and  Testimony" — for  they 
are  all  pledged,  and  sworn,  and  tried  men.  Yet  where  are 
they  ?  They  are  scattered  everywhere  through  the  church. 
Every  minister  not  in  the  secret  has  one  or  more  of  them 
in  his  neighbourhood,  perhaps  in  his  own  Presbytery.  To 
promote  the  same  object,  the  letters  are  sent  to  the  elders 
of  the  churches  that  they  may  become  spies  upon  their 
pastors,  and  informers  in  regard  to  their  orthodoxy.  It 
invites  to  secret  suspicion,  and  secret  crimination.  It 
asks  my  neighbour  with  whom  I  am  associated,  and  who 
sees  me  every  day,  to  be  a  spy  upon  my  movements  ; 
and  to  give  his  own  construction  to  my  opinions,  and 
secretly  to  convey  his  impressions  to  a  distant,  irre- 
sponsible committee,  clandestinely  engaged  in  plotting 
the  dismemberment  of  the  church,  and  overthrowing  the 
fair  institutions  of  Presbyterianism  in  this  land. 

3.  This  letter  contemplates  movements  that  are  an  entire 
departure  from  Presbyterianism ;  and  which,  it  seems  to 
me,  involve  a  violation  of  solemn  ministerial  vows.  Every 
minister  of  the  gospel  in  our  connexion  solemnly  promises 
to  adhere  to  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church ; 
and  it  is  implied  in  those  vows  that  he  will  seek  no  other 
mode  of  discipline,  and  no  other  measures  for  opposing 
heresy  or  error  than  those  which  are  prescribed  in  the 
standards.  Yet  in  the  cases  which  have  given  birth  to 
this  letter,  the  regular  and  prescribed  modes  of  discipline 
have  been  pursued.  Charges  have  been  regularly  brought 
and  tried,  and  after  the  fullest  investigations  there  has 
been  an  entire  acquittal.  Here  according  to  Presbyte- 
rianism and  common  honesty,  the  matter  in  regard  to 
those  gentlemen  is  to  stop.  If  there  are  gentlemen  in  the 
Church  who  hold  error,  the  way  is  open  for  their  regular 
arraignment,  and  trial,  and  condemnation.  The  Book  of 
Discipline  prescribes  the  course,  and  the  only  course 
which  conscientious  Presbyterians  can  pursue.  But  this 
letter  invites  to  a  different  course.  It  contemplates  a  new 
measure.  It  asks  gravely  of  the  initiated  and  the  faithful, 
whether,  if  any  such  error  exists  as  ought  to  exclude  the 

15 


170  PROPOSED    DIVISION 

holders  thereof  from  the  Church,  they  know  of  any  mode 
in  which  the  offending  brother  can  be  removed  ?  Why  is 
this  ?  Is  not  the  way  open  ?  Does  not  the  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline prescribe  the  mode  ?  Can  an  honest  Presbyterian 
ask  about  any  other  mode  than  that  to  which  he  has 
sworn,  and  to  which  he  has  promised  adherence  ?  Why 
then  is  invention  put  upon  the  rack  ?  Why  then  do  the 
Committee  acknowledge  that  they  can  think  of  no  way,  and 
invite  others  all  over  the  land  to  think  out  some  new  way 
by  which  they  can  eject  their  brethren  from  the  ministry? 
The  language  of  this  question  put  into  plain  English,  is 
this,  "■  We  have  tried  the  regular  steps  of  discipline  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  the  system  does  not  work  to  our 
mind.  We  raised  the  note  of  alarm  ;  we  succeeded  in 
getting  the  church  excited  and  distracted ;  we  enrolled 
the  names  of  all  who  promised  to  adhere  to  us  ;  and  then, 
when  matters  were  all  arranged,  we  brought  charges 
against  prominent  men.  We  carried  those  charges 
through  all  the  regular  stages,  and  adopted  all  the  means 
known  to  the  Constitution.  But  the  system  did  not  work 
to  our  mind.  They  are  still  in  the  Church.  Do  you  know, 
"  dear  brother,"  of  any  new  way — any  way  unknown  to 
the  Constitution  by  which  those  men,  and  their  friends  can 
be  removed  ?  Is  there  any  new  way  of  attacking  them,  of 
undermining  their  influence,  of  crippling  their  usefulness, 
so  as  to  compel  them  to  leave  the  Church?  It  is  true  we 
have  established  rules,  and  a  regular  government,  and 
most  excellent  standards,"  and  we  have  tried  all  these. 
But  all  this  availeth  us  nothing  so  long  as  we  see  Mordica  the 
Jew  sitting  in  the  King's  gate." 

4.  It  is  natural  to  ask  who  are  the  men  who  thus  se- 
cretly invite  suspicion,  and  crimination,  and  who  are  aim- 
ing at  the  dismemberment  of  the  Church  ? 

Foremost  is  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  and  one 
other  minister  who  came  among  us  from  the  Scceder 
Church.  Not  native  born  Presbyterians  ;  or  not  nurtured 
in  the  views  of  interpreting  the  Standards  of  the  Church 
which  have  prevailed  among  us  from  the  year  1727 — and 
down  through  all  the  periods  of  our  history  till  the  pre- 
sent, they  came  among  us  but  a  few  years  since  with  a 
few  others  from  the  same  communion,  and  as  one  of  their 
first  acts  they  now  invite  suspicion,  and  crimination,  and 


OF    THE    CHURCH.  171 

modestly  demand  that  a  large  portion  of  the  ministers  of 
our  connexion  should  be  ejected.  Certainly  the  modesty 
of  these  gentlemen  cannot  be  sufficiently  commended ; 
nor  can  it  be  deemed  surprising  that  they  should  in  this 
letter  complain  of  "  foreign  influence,"  and  ask  whether 
the  evils  which  now  exist  have  not  arisen  from  a  "  foreign 
influence" —  from  our  connexion  with  the  churches  of  New 
England  ?  Almost  forty  years  have  rolled  away  since 
that  connexion  was  formed  ;  ten  years  have  not  elapsed 
since  those  gentlemen  were  in  the  Associate  church. 

One  other  of  the  signers  of  this  letter  is  a  Professor  in  the 
Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton.  Last  fall,  in  the  Synod 
of  Philadelphia,  this  gentleman  used  the  following  lan- 
guage, "  Let  us  trust  the  next  General  Assembly."  If  that 
body  shall  not  decide  that  there  is  error  and  more  dangerous 
error  in  this  book  (Mr.  Barnes'  Notes  on  the  Romans) 
then  my  best  prayer  for  it  shall  be  "  may  it  never,  never 
meet  again  !"  Yes  ;  if  that  shall  be  its  decision  let  it  be 
dissolved  into  its  elements  ;  and  while  out  of  its  scattered 
fragments  the  gold,  and  silver,  and  precious  stones  shall 
be  gathered  into  one  heap,  let  the  wood,  and  hay,  and 
stubble  be  oathered  into  another.  If  the  Assembly  shall 
take  your  ground  we  shall  be  safe  :  but  if  not,  I  repeat  the 
prayer,  '  may  it  never,  no,  never  meet  again.'  "  Report 
of  Synod,  p.  263.  This  Secret  Letter  is  one  of  the  means  by 
which  this  prayer  is  to  be  answered. 

The  name  of  another  member  of  the  Committee  is  the 
Rev.  William  M' Do  well,  D.  D.,  Secretary  and  General 
Agent  of  the  General  Assembly's  Board  of  Missions. 
That  his  name  is  there  will  be  a  matter  of  surprise  and  re 
gret  by  all  his  friends.  His  course  of  life  hitherto  had 
not  been  such  as  to  lead  to  the  expectation  that  his  name 
should  be  thus  recorded.-  It  would  have  been  predicted 
ten  years  since,  nay,  three  years  since,  that  he  would 
have  pursued  a  different  course ;  and  that  from  respect  to 
his  official  station,  or  his  personal  character,  or  following 
the  natural  inclinations  of  his  heart  to  peace,  and  to  con- 
fidence in  his  ministerial  brethren,  he  would  have  frowned 
on  a  transaction  like  this.  I  venture  to  predict  that  the 
time  will  come — and  that  at  no  distant  period — when  he 
will  look  upon  this  act  with  regret. 

The  name  of  one  other  gentleman  is  that  of  the  Rev. 


172  PROPOSED    DIVISION 

Francis  M'Farland,  Corresponding  Secretary  and  Ge- 
neral Agent  of  the  General  Assembly's  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, (who  has  declared,  over  his  own  signature,  in  re- 
gard to  this  letter,)  that  "  it  was  never  expected  to  be 
kept  secret ;  it  was  the  full  understanding  of  the  Com- 
mittee that  it  would  be  shortly  published  in  the  newpapers  ; 
and  it  would  have  been  published  long  ago,  but  it  was  the 
wish  of  the  Committee  to  call  the  special  attention  of  a 
number  of  those  who  were  known  in  general,  to  coincide 
with  them  in  opinion  to  these  points,  which  certainly 
could  not  have  been  so  well  accomplished  had  it  appeared 
first,  or  simultaneously  in  print." 

Here  is  a  distinct  avowal  over  the  name  of  the  Cor- 
responding Secretary  and  General  Agent  of  the  General 
Assembly's  Board  of  Education  that  he,  in  connexion 
with  other  gentlemen,  had  objects  to  be  "  accomplished'' 
by  a  secret  circular,  sent  to  a  part  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  which  "  could  not  so  well  be  accomplished," 
had  the  design  been  known. 

Here  we  are  presented  with  a  most  remarkable  fact ;  and 
one  which  demands  and  which  will  receive  the  attention 
of  the  Presbyterian  Churches  in  the  land.  A  secret 
letter,  inviting  suspicion,  and  crimination,  and  tending 
to  the  dismemberment  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  is 
sent  forth  signed  by  one  Professor  in  the  Theological 
Seminary,  and  by  the  two,  and  only  general  Agents  of  the 
General  Assembly.  Some  reflections  of  serious  import 
crowd  on  the  mind. 

It  is  natural  to  ask  whether  this  is  the  purpose  for 
which  these  gentlemen  were  appointed  to  these  impor- 
tant offices  1  Did  the  General  Assembly  when  it  made 
or  sanctioned  these  appointments  contemplate  this  as  a 
part  of  their  duties  ?  Did  the  Assembly  suppose  that  they 
would  have  either  the  inclination  or  the  leisure  to  engage 
in  plans  contemplating  the  dismemberment  of  the  Church  ? 
Is  this  the  way  in  which  they  shall  fulfill  their  duties  to 
the  body  from  which  they  have  received  their  power  ;  and 
is  this  to  constitute  a  part  of  their  reports  to  the  next  Ge- 
neral Assembly  ? 

Those  gentlemen  are  supported  from  the  funds  of  the 
church,  at  an  annual  expense  of  not  less  than  six  thousand 
dollars.  Was  that  money  contributed  with  the  expectation 


OF    THE    CHURCH.  173 

that  it  would  be  appropriated  to  men  who  would  labor  for 
the  dismemberment  of  the  Church  1  Did  the  General 
Assembly  of  this  year,  or  of  any  former  year,  make  appro- 
priations for  their  salaries  with  the  expectation  that  they 
were  sustaining  men  who  were  secretly  aiming  at  the  divi- 
sion of  the  Church  ?  A  delicate  casuist  would  say  that  it  was 
a  matter  of  difficult  solution  to  know  how  they  could  ap- 
propriate time,  and  influence  which  belongs  to  the  entire 
Church,  and  which  is  sustained  by  the  monies  of  the 
Church  in  other  purposes  than  those  contemplating  the 
training  of  her  sons  for  the  ministry,  or  the  extension  of 
the  gospel  throughout  the  land.  In  what  article  of  these 
Societies,  or  in  the  "  Plan  for  the  Theological  Seminary" 
is  it  said  that  the  promotion  of  suspicion  and  schism 
shall  be  a  part  of  the  duty  of  the  incumbents  in  these 
offices  ? 

Again: — These  gentlemen  have  an  official  influence 
and  power.  It  has  been  created  by  the  acts  of  the 
General  Assembly ;  and  is  the  property  of  the  General 
Assembly.  It  arises  not  from  the  moral  worth  of  these 
gentlemen,  however  great  that  may  be,  but  it  arises  from 
the  fact  that  the  Assembly  has  committed  to  them  a  por- 
tion of  its  own  influence  and  authority.  Did  the  Assembly 
design  that  its  own  influence  should  be  thus  employed  ? 
Was  it  to  promote  division  and  alienation  that  they  were 
appointed  to  these  responsible  offices  ? 

There  is  one  other  question.  Can  it  be  supposed  that 
the  secretaries  and  agents  of  the  Boards'  of  the  Assembly 
are  pursuing  a  course  which  is  unknown  to  their  Boards, 
or  which  is  disapproved  by  them  1  Is  it  not  a  fair  infer- 
ence that  when  the  general  agents  of  their  Boards  become 
thus  the  advocates  of  schism,  and  lend  their  official  influ- 
ence to  promote  it,  that  this  is  the  course  also  which  their 
numerous  subordinate  agents  in  the  churches  are  expected 
to  pursue,  and  which  they  will  advance  ?  But  if  this  be 
so,  then  who  can  follow  and  detect  the  numerous  bad  in- 
fluences which  are  now  already  in  operation,  and  which 
have  been  so  long  pursued  that  a  public  stand  may  now  be 
taken  tending  to  divide  and  rend  into  fragments  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  the  United  States  ?  If  this  be  the 
purpose,  the  action,  and  the  prostituted  official  influence  of 
these  Boards,  is  the  preservation  of  the  church  consistent 

15*       - 


174       PROPOSED     DIVISION    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

with  their  continued  existence  ?  Should  the  church  nou- 
rish in  its  own  bosom,  and  sustain  by  its  own  authority  and 
resources  that  which  is  known  to  be  employed  to  rend  it 
into  fragments  ? 

I  ask,  in  conclusion,  is  the  church  always  to  be  ha- 
rassed and  distracted  by  plans  like  this  ?  Six  years  have 
rolled  away  amidst  suspicions,  and  criminations,  and  pro- 
secutions, and  plans,  secret  and  public,  to  rend  the  church 
in  this  land.  Plan  after  plan  has  been  tried  and  foiled  ; 
and  yet  invention  is  not  exhausted.  Suspicion  did  all  it 
could.  Crimination  did  all  it  could.  Prosecution  did  all 
it  could.  The  "  Act  and  Testimony"  did  all  it  could.  God 
in  mercy  interposed  and  saved  the  church  from  division. 
And  now  official  influence,  and  the  names  of  the  public 
officers  of  the  church  are  doing  what  they  can  secretly  to 
accomplish  the  same  end  ;  to  recover  prostrated  power, 
or  to  rend  the  church  to  fragments.  In  the  mean  time,  re- 
vivals have  ceased,  and  the  humble  and  the  pious  are 
weary  with  these  contentions,  and  the  feeling  of  the  church 
at  large  demands  that  the  ministers  of  religion  should 
lay  aside  these  contentions,  and  give  themselves  to  the 
promotion  of  pure  and  undefiled  religion.  The  church  on 
earth,  and  the  church  in  heaven;  the  interests  of  religion 
every  where  demand,  that  every  friend  of  peace  and  unity 
should  be  at  his  post ;  should  oppose  these  efforts  at  di- 
vison  ;  and  fix  their  eye  and  heart  on  the  maxim  of  Paul, 
Mark  them  which  cause  divisions,  AND  AVOID 
THEM. 

An  Enemy  to  Schism 


175 


CHAPTER    XI. 


PROPOSED     DIVISION    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

The  origin  of  the  existing  divisions  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  The  a  Adopting  Act?  Dr. 
Millers  account  of  the  Schism  in  1741.  Con- 
cluding remarks. 

The  real  merits  of  the  questions  which  now  agitate 
the  Presbyterian  church,  and  which  are  discussed  in 
the  preceding  chapters,  cannot  be  well  understood 
and  appreciated  without  considering  them  in  con- 
nexion with  the  history  of  similar  difficulties  in  for- 
mer times.  It  is  well  known  that,  from  the  begin- 
ning, there  existed  among  the  constituent  elements  of 
our  church,  the  same  or  a  similar  diversity  of  views 
in  respect  both  to  doctrine  and  dicipline  which  now 
prevails.  That  portion  of  the  church,  therefore, 
which  was  represented  by  the  General  Asseml  ly  is 
not  composed  of  aliens,  as  their  opponents  now 
affect  to  regard  them,  thrusting  themselves  in  by 
tolerance,  and  discomposing  the  harmonious  and 
peaceful  body.  We  are,  as  really  as  our  brethren,  the 
genuine  sons  of  the  Church,  and  ought  to  be  beloved 
for  the  fathers'  sakes,  as  well  as  they.  Our  views  of 
doctrine  and  discipline  are  as  truly  the  orthodoxy  of 
the  church  and  her  Presbyterianism,  as  those  of  our 
brethren  of  the  other  portion.  We  have  as  much 
rip-lit,  therefore,  to  refuse  to  regard  their  votes  as  or- 


176  PROPOSED     DIVISION 

thodox  Presbyterian  votes,  as  they  have  thus  to 
refuse  ours  ;  as  much  right  to  treat  them  as  here- 
tics, as  they  have  thus  to  treat  us.  More  than  a  hun- 
dred years  ago,  in  1729,  the  mother  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia, after  much  discussion,  passed  what  is  called 
the  "  Adopting  Act"  by  which  the  Synod,  composed 
as  it  was  at  that  time  of  emigrants  from  Europe, 
(Scotch  and  Irish  Presbyterians,)  and  others  who  had 
been  educated  Congregationalists, united  in  receiving 
the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms, 
as  containing  the  system  of  doctrines  taught  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  And  because  of  the  diversities  of 
views  which  then,  as  now,  existed,  the  following  de- 
claration was  incorporated  in  the  "  Adopt ing  Act ;" 
viz. 

"  In  case  any  minister  of  the  Synod  or  any  candi- 
date for  the  ministry,  shall  have  any  scruple  in  respect 
to  any  article  or  articles  of  said  Confession,  he  shall, 
in  time  of  making  said  declaration,  declare  his  scruples 
to  the  Synod  or  Presbytery,  who  shall,  notwithstanding, 
admit  him  to  the  exercise  of  the  ministry  within  our  bounds, 
and  to  ministerial  communion,  -if  the  Synod  or  Presby- 
tery shall  judge  his  scruples  not  essential  or  necessary 
in  doctrine,  worship,  or  government." 

And  when  subsequently  the  Synod  was  divided, 
in  1741,  on  the  ground  of  differences  in  doctrines  and 
measures,  and  the  Synod  of  New  York  was  consti- 
tuted, were  not  the  causes  of  separation  substantially 
the  same  as  those  which  now  exist  ?  Yet  after  a  se- 
paration of  seventeen  years,  the  above  Synods  were 
re-united,  on  the  principles  of  the  "  Adopting  Act^ 
without  any  material  change  of  sentiments.  The 
following  is  Dr.  Miller's  account  of  the  re-union. 


OF    THE    CHURCH.  177 

"  Both  parties  gradually  cooled.  Both  became  sensible 
that  they  had  acted  rashly  and  uncharitably.  Both  felt 
the  inconvenience  as  well  as  the  sin  of  division  Con- 
gregations had  been  rent  in  pieces.  Two  houses  of  wor- 
ship, and  two  ministers  were  established  in  places  where 
there  was  not  adequate  support  for  one.  The  members  of 
one  Synod  were  excluded  from  the  pulpits  of  the  other ; 
and  this  was  the  case  even  when  individuals  cordially  re- 
spected each  other,  and  were  desirous  of  a  fraternal  inter- 
change of  ministerial  services.  Still,  although  both  parties 
soon  became  heartily  sick  of  the  division,  the  Synod  re- 
mained divided  for  seventeen  years.  The  first  overture 
towards  a  union  appears  to  have  been  made  by  the  Synod 
ol  New-York  in  the  year  1749.  But  nine  years  were 
spent  in  negotiations.  At  length  mutual  concessions  were 
made  :  the  articles  of  union,  in  detail,  were  agreed  upon, 
and  the  Synods  were  happily  united  under  the  title  of  the 

r  7A?    ,    ^6W"York  aild  Philadelphia,  in  the  year  1758." 
[Miller  s  Letters  to  Presbyterians,  p.  11.] 

Again.  »  In  contemplating  the  present  state  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  in  comparison  with  its  former  conflicts 
and  trials,  the  following  questions  very  naturally  present 
themselves  to  the  considerate  mind.  Do  the  great  mass 
of  the  ministers  and  members  of  our  church  differ  more 
among  themselves  at  this  hour,  than  did  those  who  directed 
her  affairs  ninety  years  ago,  at  the  date  of  the  unhappy 
rupture  which  has  been  described  ?  Did  not  the  o-ood 
men  on  both  sides,  who  acted  in  that  schism,  and°pro- 
moted  it,  deeply  lament,  afterwards,  what  had  occurred, 
and  severely  reflect  on  themselves  for  the  spirit  and  con- 
duct in  which  they  had  indulged  ?  Did  not  the  same 
men,  after  seventeen  years,  actually  come  together  again, 
with  mutual  concessions,  and  with  many  lamentations 
over  their  animosities  and  rupture  ?  Is  there  the  least 
reason  to  believe  that  the  members  of  either  party  really 
entertained  essentially  different  opinions,  on  any  impor- 
tant points,  when  they  effected  a  union  in  1758,  from 
those  which  they  entertained  at  the  date  of  their  schism 
m  1741  ?  In  other  words,  was  lhere  any  more  propriety, 
on  principle,  in  their  being  united  in  1  758,  than  there  was 
[would  have  been,]  in  their  remaining  united  in  1741  ?  Is 
there  not  reason  to  believe   that  the  strife  and  division 


178  PROPOSED    DIVISION 

which  so  long  agitated  the  church,  resulted,  not  merely  in 
much  trouble  to  pious  individuals  and  churches,  but  in  the 
dishonour  of  religion  before  the  world  ;  in  hardening  and 
driving  farther  from  the  kingdom  of  God,  many  a  serious 
inquirer ;  and  in  the  final  destruction  of  hundreds  of  pre- 
cious souls,  alienated  and  confirmed  in  impiety  by  the  con- 
troversies of  christians?  Would  it  be  wise,  then,  at  the 
present  day,  to  promote  a  second  rupture,  only  to  reap 
from  it  similar  fruits  ;  nay  fruits  of,  perhaps,  still  more 
morbid  malignity  ;  and,  after  a  few  years  of  embittered 
strife,  to  come  together  again,  as  our  fathers,  did,  with 
mutual  regrets  and  humiliation,  for  having  ever  separated, 
and  without  one  important  object  having  been  gained  by 
the  separation  ?"     [Ibid,  p.p.     13  and  14.] 

These  were  the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Miller  in  1833. 
on  the  subject  of  a  division  of  the  church.  Yet,  we 
are  told  that  he  was  present  at  the  late  meeting  of 
the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  and  voted  for  the 
resolution  "unanimously  adopted"  by  that  body, 
declaring,  in  effect,  that,  in  their  "  deliberate  judg- 
ment," a  division  of  the  church  is  now  necessary! 
We  confess  that  we  cannot  reconcile  these  opposite 
positions  with  the  consistent  identity  of  the  respected 
father,  who  has  so  rapidly  changed  from  the  one  to 
the  other. 

It  is  known  also  that,  in  the  controversies  which 
rent  the  church  in  1741,  the  leading  sympathies  of 
the  oue  side  were  with  the  mother  church  in  Scot- 
land, while  the  other,  holding  substantially  the  same 
doctrines,  illustrated  them  rather  in  the  phraseology 
of  Edwards  and  of  the  New  England  divines,  than 
in  the  technical  language  of  the  standards.  From 
the  time  of  the  union,  however,  the  parties  agreed  to 
waive  these  minor  differences,  and  to  pursue  the 
things  which  should  make  for  peace,  bearing  and 


OF    THE    CHURCH.  179 

forbearing   one  another.     Until  recently,  however 
the  seat  of  empire  was  in   Philadelphia,   and   the 
lineal  descent  of  church  power  and  policy  with  the 
sons  of  the  church  beyond  the  waters.     Yet,  though 
a  jealous  eye  was  kept,  from  the  beginning,  upon 
that  portion  of  the  church  which  was  of  American 
origin,   and   particularly    upon   the   sons    of    New 
England,  suspicions  gradually  died  away,  peace  and 
prosperity    returned,    and    friendly    relations    were 
sought  between  our  church  and  the  churches  of  New 
England.     A  plan  of  co-operation    was   at   length 
adopted   for  uniting   Presbyterians    and  Congrega- 
tionalistsin   the  same   churches  in  the  new  settle- 
ments.    In  the  prosecution  of  this  plan  our  churches 
were  replenished    and   greatly   multiplied;  and  so 
long  as  the  power  of  the  church  was  supposed  to  be 
safe  in  the  hands  of  those  who  had  been  accustomed 
to  hold  and  exercise  it,   the  American  Presbyterians 
enjoyed  quietness  and  estimation  among  their  breth- 
ren.     But  the   tide   of  emigration  from   the   older 
states,  to  the  West,  began  to  set  strong;  Presbyterians 
of  American  predilictions  were  rapidly  multiplied, 
and  the  delegates  to  the  Assembly,  of  this  class,  were 
approximating  to  a  majority.     Then  it  was  that  the 
alarm  about  heresy  was  raised,  and  the  distinction 
between  sound  and  unsound  Presbyterians  became 
rife  in  the  discussions  of  those  who  had  long  held 
the  dynasty  of  power. 

It  was  not  unnatural  that  our  brethren  should  feel 
that  their  own  views  of  doctrine  and  discipline  were 
important,  and  that  the  administration  could  not  pass 
from  their  hands  to  ours  without  endangering  the 
purity  and  health  of  the  church.     And  it  is  not  sur- 


180  PROPOSED    DIVISION 

prising  that,  from  the  long  prescriptive  right  which 
they  had  enjoyed,  of  nursing  and  governing,  they 
had  come  to  regard  the  church  as  their  beloved  Zion. 
and  those  whose  irrepressible  growth  had  begun  to 
give  them  disquiet,  as  aliens,  coming  in  to  take  away 
their  place  and  nation.  It  was  natural,  therefore,  to 
expect  that  all  lawful  means  would  be  used  to  avert 
so  great  a  calamity.  But  it  was  not  to  be  anticipated 
that,  among  the  means  adopted  for  this  purpose, 
would  be  found  whisperings,  and  secret  correspond- 
ence, and  public  denunciations,  and,  at  length,  accu- 
sations, and  trials,  and  suspensions,  for  heresy,  of  men 
who  are  guilty  of  no  greater  departure  from  the 
technicalities  of  our  standards  than  were  Edwards 
and  Dwight  and  a  multitude  of  others,  whose  praise 
is  in  all  the  churches.  Much  less  could  it  have  been 
expected  that  the  moment  when  all  these  efforts  had 
failed,  and  the  individuals  accused  and  prosecuted 
had  been  restored  to  their  merited  standing  in  the 
ministry,  by  the  decisions  of  our  highest  judicatories, 
would  have  been  selected  as  the  time  to  urge  upon 
American  Presbyterians,  now  the  majority  of  the 
church,  the  claims  of  the  minority  to  special  favor, 
and  to  appeal  to  our  sympathies  and  our  magnan- 
imity, to  enable  them  to  complete  a  system  of  influen- 
ces, by  which  they  might  hereafter  hope  to  accom- 
plish what  they  had  just  now  attempted  and  pursued 
through  all  our  courts,  and  failed  to  effect,  the  dis- 
franchisement, by  a  division  of  our  highest  judica- 
tory, of  all  such  as  hold  the  doctrines  of  the  present 
majority  of  the  church  !  The  object  for  which  they 
desire  the  facilities  which  they  claim  is  no  longer 
doubtful,  and  they  might  almost  as  well  have  said  to 


OF    THE    CHURCH.  181 

us  in  the  last  Assembly,  "  Brethren,  you  granted  us 
in  1828,  a  Board  of  Domestic  Missions,  and  we  have 
our  Education  Board,  and  by  the  agencies  connected 
with  these,  we  have  greatly  increased  and  concen- 
trated our  strength,  as  a  party,  and  we  have  not  de- 
layed to  assail  the  character  and  rights  of  conspicuous 
members  of  the  other  portion  of  the  church.  And 
so  great  were  our  facilities  and  our  increased  strength 
that  we  had  nearly  attained  our  object,  your  excision 
from  the  church  !  But  we  have  failed  !  We  are 
yet  a  minority.  Give  us  one  more  Board,  to  act 
under  our  control,  (and  yet  in  the  name  and  by  the 
authority  of  the  General  Assembly,)  and  by  the 
pecuniary  patronage  connected  with  the  action  of 
such  a  Board,  for  such  a  purpose,  and  the  sympathies 
which  it  may  enlist  on  our  behalf,  we  shall  soon  be 
able  to  purify  the  church  from  the  influence  of  all 
such  men  as  you.  Now,  therefore  <  give  us  a 
Board  !'  It  is  reasonable  ;  —it  is  our  natural  right !" 
What  an  appeal  to  the  generosity  and  kindness  of 
those,  whose  right  to  an  honorable  and  peaceable 
standing  in  the  church  they  dispute,  and  only  want 
the  power  to  destroy  ! 

Instead,  however,  of  being  moved  by  a  spirit  of  un- 
kindness  in  refusing  to  consummate  the  wishes  of  the 
minority,  the  majority  simply  obeyed  the  dictates  of 
their  own  consciences,  and  of  self-preservation.  The 
trial  of  two  of  our  most  useful  and  conspicuous  mem- 
bers has  been  ecclesiastical,  and  carried  with  unre- 
lenting perseverance  through  all  the  courts  of  the 
church  ;  and  had  the  decision  gone  against  them,  it 
must  have  affected  most  painfully  thecharacter  and 

16 


182  PROPOSED    DIVISION 

rights  of  that  whole  portion  of  the  church,  with 
which  they  are  classed,  branding  them  all  as  here- 
tics, compelling  them  to  surrender  their  discretion 
and  liberty,  or  to  eat  the  bread  of  a  precarious  tole- 
ration. To  such  humiliation  God  did  not  call  us, 
nor  permit  us  to  be  accessary.  And  what  is  our 
offence  ?  It  is  that  we  would  not  aid  in  providing 
our  brethren  with  the  means  of  our  own  disfran- 
chisement and  degradation.  This  is  the  head  and 
front  of  our  offending.  We  have  made  no  as- 
saults on  their  characters.  We  have  only  defended 
our  own.  And  yet  more  flagrant  errors  have  been 
advanced  by  some  of  them,  and  tolerated  by  all,  than 
have  been  proved  against  any  of  as. 

We  have  no  desire  to  maintain  our  ascendency  in 
the  church,  except  as  the  means  of  self  preservation. 
Let  our  brethren  of  the  minority  cease  wrongfully  to 
accuse  us  and  enterprise  our  disability  and  downfall  ; 
let  them  accord  to  us  the  confidence  we  have  earned, 
and  done  nothing  to  forfeit,  and  we  pledge  ourselves 
that  there  shall  be  no  strife  on  our  part,  who  shall  be 
the  greatest.  We  care  not  which  of  these  portions 
of  the  church  shall  have  the  majority,  so  long  as  we 
may  preach  the  doctrines  of  our  standards  in  our 
own  language,  and  promote  revivals  and  missions, 
unhindered  by  secret  machinations  and  public  pro- 
secutions. The  lust  of  power  is  not  with  us.  If  we 
may  be  allowed  to  pursue  our  own  views  of  duty, 
protected  and  unmolested,  we  have  no  disposition  to 
require  of  our  brethren  "  to  profess  what  they  do  not 
not  believe"  or  "  to  do  what  they  cannot  approve ;" 
.and   if  they  will   allow  us  to  exercise  the  liberty 


OF    THE    CHUCRH.  183 

which  they  claim,  the  helm  of  power  may  return 
to  their  hands,  as  the  guaranty  of  their  safety,  as 
long  as  it  shall  also  guaranty  ours. 

Some  of  us,  it  is  admitted,  differ  from  some  of  our 
brethren  in  our  mode  of  teaching  the  doctrines  of  the 
Bible  and  of  our  standards.  But  we  differ  from  them 
no  more  than  they  differ  from  us  ;  and  we  appreciate 
our  manner  of  explaining  the  truth,  and  our  modes  of 
operation  for  the  advancement  of  religion  and  the 
conversion  of  the  world,  as  highly  as  they  do  or  can 
appreciate  theirs.  While  therefore  we  would  not, 
for  the  world,  interfere  with  their  liberty,  we  cannot 
consent  to  surrender  our  own.  We  covet  none  of  their 
funds.  We  have  no  desire  to  usurp  the  control  of 
institutions  which  they  regard  especially  as  their  own, 
provided  they  will  cease  to  employ  them,  as  the  in- 
stitutions of  the  whole  Church,  to  annoy  the  mem- 
bers and  institutions  of  that  portion  of  the  church 
who  prefer  to  perform  their  labors  of  love,  under 
other  forms  and  organizations.  That  some  of  these 
institutions  have  been  thus  used  is  fully  proved  on 
the  preceding  pages.  Their  secretaries  and  officers 
have  become  the  champions  of  a  party,  and  while 
they  claim  to  be  regarded  as  the  servants  of  the  whole 
church,  "  acting  in  its  name  and  by  its  authority," 
they  do  not  hesitate  to  unite  with  a  Committee  of  the 
minority  to  undermine  and  destroy,  by  secret  corres- 
pondence and  public  accusations,  the  influence  and 
good  name  of  their  brethren  of  the  majority.  The 
churches  then  have  reason  to  be  u  astounded ;"  and 
we  submit  it  to  the  members  of  our  communion  in  the 
length  and  breadth  of  the  land,  whether  they  will 


184  PROPOSED    DIVISION 

allow  their  public  functionaries,  sustained  by  the 
highest  ecclesiastical  authority  in  the  church,  thus  to 
pervert  their  official  power  and  influence  to  the  rend- 
ing and  the  dismemberment  of  the  very  body,  whose 
united  interests,  by  the  conditions  of  their  appoint- 
ment, they  are  bound  to  protect  and  promote  ?  A 
house  thus  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand. 

In  view  of  this  state  of  things,  then,  we  address 
ourselves  to  American  Presbyterians,  and  ask,  can- 
not these  divisions  be  healed  ?  If  they  have  resulted 
from  the  perversion  of  official  influence,  is  not  that 
influence  within  the  control  of  the  church  which  has 
conferred  it  ?  May  it  not  be  arrested  by  the  voice  of 
her  members  ?  Has  it  come  to  this  ?  Must  the  church 
submit  to  be  divided  and  distracted  by  agencies  of  her 
own  appointment  ?  We  put  the  question  to  all  her 
members.  We  press  it  upon  the  consciences  of  her 
ministers,  her  elders  and  her  communicants.  Look  at 
the  tremendous  evils  of  division  on  the  grounds 
which  are  urged  by  the  strangely  constituted  "  Com- 
mittee," whose  publication  we  have  noticed.  Where 
will  they  draw  the  line  which  shall  separate  us? 
Imagine  it  cleaving  asunder  Synods,  Presbyteries, 
Congregations,  churches,  and  families,  weakening  the 
energies. and  wasting  the  strength  of  both  divisions  of 
their  distracted  body  !  And  what  good  end  can  our 
brethren  hope  to  attain  by  such  a  measure?  The  "  Gen- 
tlemen in  Princeton"  believe,  and  we  fully  accord  with 
them  in  the  opinion,  that,  "instead  of  producing 
peace,  it  will  probably  increase  discord  ;  instead  of 
promoting  truth,  it  will  probably  render  error  trium- 
phant ;  instead  of  advancing  the  interests  of  Presby- 


OF    THE    CHURCH.  185 

terianism,  it  will  probably  destroy  its  influence.'' 
And,  then,  where  will  be  the  strength  of  the  church  to 
sustain  her  mighty  responsibilities  in  regard  to  the 
work  of  missions  1  Let  our  brethren,  who  would  both 
call  us  away  from  other  associations  and  divide  us 
among  ourselves,  on  such  a  subject  as  this,  look  to  it, 
that  they  do  not  mar  and  destroy  the  work  which 
they  endeavour  to  promote.  Our  confidence,  how- 
ever, is  strong  that  it  cannot  be  destroyed.  The 
Providence  of  God,  in  regard  to  the  American 
churches  hitherto,  and  the  signs  of  the  times  assure 
us  that  he  will  not  prosper  the  counsels  that  would 
divide  us.  We  have  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  bap- 
tism, and  instead  of  being  alarmed  at  the  differences 
of  doctrinal  belief  which  exist  among  us,  we  ought 
to  be  thankful,  that,  on  the  essential  principles  of  the 
gospel  there  is  so  general  an  agreement.  We  are 
essentially  one  body.  We  have  one  end  in  view, 
and  the  principles  which  we  maintain  are  such  as 
urge  us  to  the  attainment  of  that  end,  the  spread  of 
the  gospel  in  all  the  earth.  And  our  endeavours  to 
accomplish  this  glorious  end,  so  far  as  they  are 
wakened  and  urged  by  the  spirit  of  missions,  under 
whatever  forms  we  may  prefer  to  act,  are  sympathe- 
tic movements  of  one  vital  energy,  diversified  opera- 
tions of  one  spirit,  which,  as  far  as  it  shall  pervade 
the  ministry,  the  officers  and  the  members  of  the 
churches,  will  mould  them,  with  mighty  energy,  into 
the  same  image.  Let  both  parties  in  the  church 
cherish  this  spirit,  and  minor  differences  will  soon 
be  lost  in  the  ardor  of  the  enterprise  and  the  hope  of 
glory. 


186  PROPOSED    DIVISION 

A  dispensation  of  the  gospel  is  committed  to  the 
churches  of  this  land ;  and  it  cannot  be  that  Ameri- 
can Presbyterians,  amid  all  the  light  which  is  con- 
centrated upon  the  present  age,  and  upon  the  destinies 
of  this  country,  will  be  allowed  to  lose  sight  of  the 
high  vantage  ground  on  which  God  has  placed  them 
for  the  sake  of  all  other  nations,  or  long  to  forget 
how  much  they  are  debtors  to  the.  whole  world.  We 
beseech  our  brethren,  therefore,  who  would  divide 
the  church,  on  such  grounds  as  we  have  considered, 
to  pause  in  the  midst  of  their  excitement,  and 
reflect  on  their  responsibilities,  in  common  with 
us.  The  eyes  of  all  nations  are  upon  us,  and  the 
hope  of  the  world,  under  God,  hangs  upon  our  de- 
terminations. And  we  aie  rich  in  the  treasures  of 
experience  ;  history  has  recorded  her  long  story  for 
our  instruction  ;  the  results  of  the  wisdom  of  many 
ages  have  come  down  to  us,  while  he  who  is  Head 
over  all  things  to  the  church  is,  in  a  special  manner, 
lifting  up  his  standard  in  the  midst  of  us.  All  things 
are  ready  for  decisive  action;  and  the  circumstances 
of  the  times,  as  well  as  the  spirit  of  our  profession, 
urge  us  to  press  every  advantage  and  improve  every 
talent.  We  have  confidence  in  God,  therefore,  who 
has  ordered  all  these  encouragements,  and  placed  us 
under  these  responsibilities,  and  waked  in  the  minds 
of  so  many  thousands  among  us,  the  spirit  of  mis- 
sions, that  he  will  not  suffer  us  to  be  torn  asunder  by 
the  influences  which  are  diverting  the  minds  of  so 
many  of  our  brethren,  as  we  think,  from  the  right 
ways  of  the  Lord.  To  him  we  commit  this  most 
momentous  interest,  and  urge  our  brethren,  who  ad- 


OF    THE    CHURCH.  187 

here  to  the  principles  of  the  adopting  act,  to  use 
with  the  utmost  discretion,  the  liberty  which  the  con- 
stitution of  the  church  guaranties  to  all  its  members 
and  ministers ;  and  "  by  pureness,  by  knowledge, 
by  long-suffering,  by  kindness,  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
by  love  unfeigned,  by  the  word  of  truth,  by  the  power 
of  God,  and  by  the  armour  of  righteousness,  on  the 
right  hand  and  on  the  left,"  endeavour  to  avert  the 
calamity  which  threatens  us,  and  "to  keep  the  unity 
of  the  spirit"  throughout  our  communion,  "  in  the 

BOND  OF    PEACE." 


THE    END. 


BOOKS 

PUBLISHED    AND    FOR    SALE   BY 

JOHN     S.      TAYLOR, 

THEOLOGICAL    AND    SUNDAY  SCHOOL  BOOKSELLER, 

BRICK    CHURCH    CHAPEL, 

CORNER     OF     PARK-ROW     AND     NASSAU-STREET, 

OPPOSITE  THE  CITY  HALL,  NEW-YORK. 


Select  Remains  of  the  late  Wil- 
liam Nevins,  D.  D.  with  a  Memoir. 

From  the  New-York  Weekly  Messenger. 

Select  Remains  of  the  Rev.  William  Nevi?is, 
D.  D.,  with  a  Memoir. — "  The  righteous  shall 
be  had  in  everlasting  remembrance."  They 
erect  for  themselves  a  monument,  enduring  as 
the  throne  of  God,  imperishable  as  the  crown  of 
glory  which  bedecks  the  brow  of  him  who  is 
Lord  of  all.  These  lights  of  the  world  are  ne- 
ver extinguished  ;  but  while  their  mortal  remains 
are  mouldering  in  the  tomb,  the  recollection  of 
their  graces  enkindles  in  those  who  remain,  a 
flame  of  holy  emulation  and  zeal.  Such  is,  and 
will  be  the  case,  with  respect  to  the  lamented  di- 
vine whose  honored  name  stands  at  the  head  of 
this  notice.  Dr.  Nevins  was  a  man  of  eminent 
piety  and  great  talent,  and  though  he  requested 
that  no  extended  memoir  of  him  might  be  at- 
tempted, yet  it  was  never  likely  but  that  some 
account  of  him  should  be  written  and  published. 
This  has  been  done,  and  the  usefulness  of  the 
work  before  us  cannot  fail  to  be  co-extensive  with 


2  ADVERTISEMENTS. 

its  circulation.  The  prominent  features  of  Dr. 
Nevins'  character  are  worthy  of  universal  imi- 
tation. His  talents  and  acquirements  were  su- 
perior, his  piety  sincere,  and  his  wisdom  practi- 
cal. Humility  and  amiability,  diligence  and 
punctuality,  were  traits  acknowledged  by  all  who 
knew  him.  He  was  a  powerful  writer,  and  those 
productions  of  his  pen  which  appear  in  this  vo- 
lume as  "Select  Remains,"  are  "as  apples  of 
gold  in  pictures  of  silver" — ■"  words  fitly  spoken. :! 
In  addition  to  all  the  excellencies  with  which  this 
volume  abounds,  we  are  happy  to  mention  the 
neatness  and  beauty  of  its  typography,  the  white- 
ness of  the  paper,  and  the  exquisite  delicacy  of 
the  beautiful  likeness  of  Dr.  Nevins  with  which 
the  book  is  embellished.  We  shall  cease  to  men- 
tion London  books  as  standards  of  taste  and  ele- 
gance, if  such  volumes  as  this  are  presented  to  us 
from  a  New- York  press  and  bindery.  We  re- 
commend this  work  to  universal  attention. 

From  the  New-York  Evangelist. 

Nevins1  Remains. — A  Memoir  of  the  late  Rev. 
William  Nevins,  with  Select  Extracts- from  his 
unpublished  writings. 

The  public  were  informed,  at  the  time  of  Dr. 
Nevins'  decease,  that.his  papers  had  been  placed, 
by  himself,  in  the  hands  of  Rev.  William  Plu- 
mer,  to  be  used  at  his  discretion.  The  volume 
before  us  is  the  result,  and  shows  that  the  discre- 
tion has  been  discreetly  exercised.  The  memoir 
is  brief,  in  decorous  conformity  to  the  expressed 
wish  of  the  deceased.  The  selections  are  most- 
ly  paragraphs  and  short  essays,  such  as  Dr.  N.  • 
was  accustomed  to  write  for  the  papers. 

Probably  none  of  our  readers    have   yet    tc 


ADVERTISEMENTS. 


learn  the  character  of  Dr.  Nevins,  as  a  Christian 
of  rich  experience,  a  pastor  of  tried  fidelity,  and 
a  writer  of  religious  essays  unsurpassed  in  our 
day.  To  all  his  friends  this  volume  will  be  a 
valuable  memento.  The  publisher  has  spared  no 
pains  in  the  external  appearance  of  the  book, 
whieh  is  equal  to  the  finest  productions  of  the 
English  press.     The  portrait  is  very  fine. 

From  the  New-York  Observer. 

Select  Remains  of  Rev.  William  Nevins,  D. 
D.,  with  a  Memoir. — This  valuable  work   has 
just  been  published  by  Mr.  John  S.   Taylor,  cor- 
ner of  Park-row  and  Nassau-street.     It  is  a  hand- 
some octavo  of  398  pages,  containing  a  portrait 
engraved  on  steel.     About  80  pages  are  occupied 
with  a  biographical  notice   of  Dr.  Nevins  and 
extracts  from  his  diary.    From  1830  until  1835, 
they  are  given  in  an  unbroken  series.     We  have 
seldom  read  a  diary  with  deeper  interest.     It  be- 
comes richer  and  richer  in  heavenly  thoughts  as 
the  author  drew  near  the  end  of  his  earthly  la- 
bors.    The  book   consists  chiefly  of  selections 
from  his  unpublished  writings,  which  are  replete 
with  the  purest  and  most  exalted  sentiments,  ex- 
pressed with  simplicity,  conciseness,  and  point.  To 
all  who   have   read  Mr.   Nevins'    Essays  in  the 
New- York  Observer,  over  the  signature  of  M. 
S.,  it  is  needless  to  remark  upon  the  excellence 
and  peculiar  charm  of  his  writings,  which  com- 
bine sententiousness  and  pungency  with   deep 
and  living    piety.     The   work  may   be    recom- 
mended as  useful  in  forming,  and  strengthening, 
and  maturing  the  Christian  graces. 

From  the  Newark  Daily  Advertiser. 

,.  Select  Remains  of  Rev.  Wm.  Nevins,  D. 
£).,  with  a  Memoir.    An  elegant  octavo  of  400 


4  ADVERTISEMENTS. 

pages,  with  a  spirited  pdrrtrait  from  a  painting  by 
inman.  The  work  is  in  all  respects — paper, 
print,  binding,  contents — a  beautiful  memorial  of 
an  amiable  and  lamented  divine,  whose  pure  light 
shone  brightly  in  the  church.  The  memoir  is 
brief  and  modest,  consisting  chiefly  of  extracts 
from  his  correspondence  with  his  friends.  The 
"  Remains  "  comprise  a  great  variety  of  extracts 
from  Dr.  Nevins'  writings,  containing  his  views 
on  most  leading  questions  which  interest  the  at- 
tention of  the  christian  world. 

After  straining  the  eye  over  the  full  and  con- 
densed pages  of  the  popular  publications  of  the 
day.  we  experience  great  relief  from  the  bold  ty- 
pography, open  page,  and  clear  broad  margin  of 
an  old-fashioned  volume  like  this.  The  publish- 
er has  given  us  a  noble  specimen  of  his  art. 

From  the  Commercial  Advertiser. 

Remains  .of  Nevins.- — John  S.  Taylor  has 
just  published  a  large  and  elegantly  printed  and 
bound  8vo,  entitled  "Select  Remains  of  the  Rev. 
Wm.  Nevins,  D.  D.,  with  a  Memoir."  The  name 
of  the  author  and  compiler  is  not  given ;  but  he 
has  executed  his  labor  with  excellent  judgment 
and  taste.  The  memoir  is  a  rapid  sketch1  of  the 
life  of  Dr.  Nevins,  for  which,  although  by  no 
means  devoid  of  interest,  it  appears  that  few  ma- 
terials had  been  preserved. 

The  "  Select  Remains"  consist,  for  the  most 
part,  of  short  sketches  and  fragments  of  composi- 
tions, devout  meditations,  reflections,  &c.  upon  a 
great  variety  of  religious  and  moral  subjects, 
with  a  collection  of  select  sentences,  aphorisms, 
&c.  &c.  found  scattered  among  the  papers  of  the 
deceased.  Among  these  are  many  bright  and 
beautiful  thoughts,  and  the  whole  work  is  inter- 
spersed with  such  a  rare  spirit  of  meek  and  gen- 


ADVERTISEMENTS.  5 

tie  piety  as  is  but  seldom  to  be  found  in  the  com- 
positions of  the  best.  He  was  a  man  who  almost 
literally  "  walked  with  God." 

From  the  American  Citizen. 

Select  Remains  of  the  Rev.  William  Ne- 
vins,  D.  D.,  with  a  Memoir. — This  work  (to 
adopt  the  language  of  the  Newark  Advertiser) 
is,  in  all  respects — paper,  print,  binding,  contents 
— a  beautiful  memorial  of  an  amiable  and  la- 
mented divine,  whose  pure  light  shone  brightly 
in  the  Church.  The  memoir  is  brief  and  mo- 
dest, consisting  chiefly  of  extracts  from  his  cor- 
respondence with  his  friends.  The  "  Remains  " 
comprise  a  great  variety  of  extracts  from  Dr. 
Nevins'  writings,  containing  his  views  on  most 
leading  questions  which  interest  the  attention  of 
the  Christian  world. 

The  volume  is  an  octavo  of  400  pages,  is 
printed  on  large  open  type,  has  a  spirited  like- 
ness of  the  subject  of  the  Memoir,  painted  by  In- 
man,  and  engraved  by  Paradise,  and  is  otherwise 
well  "  got  up."  Though  Dr.  Nevins  died  young, 
his  fame  {if  the  word  maybe  pardoned)  as  a 
preacher  and  writer,  was  wide  spread,  and  we 
cannot  but  trust  that  the  good  taste  and  liberal 
spirit  of  the  publisher,  as  evinced  in  this  instance, 
will  be  duly  appreciated  and  rewarded.  Indeed, 
the  public — the  religious  public  especially — are 
much  indebted  to  Mr.  Taylor  for  their  previous 
acquaintance  with  the  author  of  these  Remains, 
through  the  "  Practical  Thoughts,"  and  the 
"  Thoughts  on  Popery"  the  first  of  which  works 
is  every  where  read  with  pleasure,  and  both,  it  is 
hoped,  with  profit ;  and  they  have  doubtless  pre- 
pared the  way  for  the  favorable  reception  of  the 
present  volume. 


6  ADVERTISEMENTS. 

Dr.  Nevins  wrote  much,  and  all  who  read, 
will  acknowledge  that  he  wrote  well. 

From  the  Evening  Star. 

Select  Remains  of  the  Rev.  William  Nevins, 
D.  D.,  vdih  a  Memoir — The  subject  of  this  me- 
moir was  a  pious  and  unpretending  divine,  in 
possession  of  strong  faculties  and  many  great 
virtues.  His  life  was  one  of  great  usefulness, 
and  much  of  his  time  devoted  to  the  relief  of  the 
distressed  and  the  alleviation  of  the  misfortunes 
of  his  brethren.  The  style  in  which  this  work 
is  sent  forth  deserves  the  highest  commendation. 
The  type  is  large,  full,  and  handsome,  and  the 
paper  is  white,  clear  and  lustrous,  and  presents  a 
beautiful  specimen  of  typographical  neatness. 

From  the  Journal  of  Commerce. 

Memoir  and  Remains  of  Rev.  Dr.  Ne- 
vins, late  of  Baltimore. — An  intelligent  friend 
who  has  read  this  work,  (which  we  have  not  yet 
found  time  to  do,)  speaks  of  it  as  "a  beautiful 
volume,  and  as  useful  as  it  is  beautiful."  He  adds 
— "  The  Memoir  is  prepared  by  a  judicious  friend 
of  the  deceased,  whose  name  is  not  given,  and 
the  Remains  consists  of  short  reflections  on  va- 
rious subjects  of  every  day  utility,  for  which  the 
lamented  author  (alas !  too  soon  removed  to  his 
reward)  was  so  celebrated.  The  manner  in  which 
it  is  got  up,  is  very  creditable  to  the  publisher, 
Mr.  John  S.  Taylor,  of  Park  Row,  Chatham- 
street.  We  need  such  aids  to  reflection,  and  we 
hope  our  readers  will  patronize  this  book,  and 
make  themselves  familiar  with  the  precepts  and 
example  of  the  worthy  disciple  of  our  Savior." 

From  the  New-York  American. 

Select  Remains  of  the  Rev.  Wm.  Ne- 
vins, D.  D.,with  a  Memoir. — The  life  of  a  pious, 


ADVERTISEMENTS.  / 

unpretending,  and  zealous  Clergyman,  offers  lit- 
tle out  of  which  to  make  a  book  suited  to  the 
popular  taste — but  affection  loves  to  perpetuate  the 
memory  of  its  objects,  and  affection  has  ushered 
forth  this  volume,  beautiful  in  its  materials  and 
typography,  and  well  fitted  to  instruct,  refine, 
and  purify  by  its  contents. 

The  extracts  from  the  diary  of  Dr.  Nevins  pre- 
sent him  in  a  most  favorable  light,  as  a  cheerful, 
humble  and  resigned  clergyman — who  found  in 
the  midst  of  severe  domestic  affliction  thauhis 
religion  Was  a  reality,  and  that  its  promises  were 
not  in  vain. 

The  greater  part  of  the  volume  is  made  up  of 
miscellaneous  extracts  on  different  subjects,  all 
connected  with  religion,  from  the  manuscript  pa- 
pers of  Dr.  Nevins. 

From  die  Philadelphia  Gazette. 

Dr.  Nevins. 

We  find  upon  our  table  a  beautifully  printed 
octavo  volume,  entitled  "Select  Remains  of  the 
Rev.  William  Nevins,  D.  D.,  with  a  Memoir;" 
and  we  observe  also,  a  well  engraved  likeness  of 
the  estimable  subject  of  the  Memoir.  We  found 
time  to  read  only  the  Memoir  and  some  of  the 
41  Remains.'1  WTe  share,  we  suppose,  with  most 
persons  the  pleasure  of  reading  diaries,  auto-bio- 
rraphical  sketches,  and  short  memoirs.  They 
open  up  the  heart  to  the  reader,  and,  as  face  an- 
swers to  face  in  the  glass,  one  finds  his  own  heart 
beating  responsive  to  the  pulsations  of  his  whose 
experience  he  is  gathering.  Dr.  Nevins  was  a 
man  of  deep  affections — while  he  seemed  to  di- 
rect all  its  streams  towards  objects  of  eternal  in- 
terest, there  was  a  swelling  up  and  gushing  forth 


8 


ADVERTISEMENTS. 


for  home  and  the  fire-side  circle,  that  showed 
how  salutary  are  the  touches  of  religion  upon  earth- 
ly love;  the  true  exercise  of  the  latter  being  the 
best  evidences  of  the  existence  of  the  former. 

The  M  Remains  "  are  extracts  from  the  sermons 
and  occasional  writings  of  Dr.  Nevins.and  show 
a  ripe  scholar,  a  clear  thinker,  and  good  writer. 
We  commend  the  book  to  those  who  like  reli- 
gious reading— they  will  find  pleasure  in  its  pe- 
rusal. We  commend  it  more  to  those  who  do 
not  like  religious  reading— they  will  find  profit 
from  its  study. 

From  the  New-Yorker. 

"Select  Remains   of  Rev.    William  Nevi?is, 
D.  D.,  with  a  Memoir:1 — Rarely  have  we  wel- 
comed to  our  table  a  volume  so  strikingly  credita- 
ble to  the  American  press  as  that  now  before  us 
— a  beautifully  and  richly  executed  octavo  of  400 
pages.   The  matter  is  worthy  of  the  garb  in  which 
it  is  presented.     The  divine  whose  "Remains  " 
are  thus  given  to  the  public,  was  a  burning  and 
a  shining  light  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and 
his  decease  was  deeply  and  widely  felt  by  his  breth- 
ren in  faith,  but  especially  at  Baltimore,  the  theatre 
of  his  labors  of  love.    The  volume  now  published 
consists  of  choice  extracts  from  his  sermons,  his 
letters,  and  his  contributions  to  the  religious  jour- 
nals.    It  is  embellished  by  a  beautiful  likeness, 
and  deserves  an  honorable  place  in  the  library  of 
the  orthodox  Christian. 

From  the  New-York  Express. 

Select  Remains  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Nevins  D  D 
with  a  Memoir.    New- York,  John  S.  Taylor  cor- 
ner of  Park  Row  and  Nassau-street;  an  elegant 
octavo  of  400  pages,  with  a  spirited  portrait  from  a 


\ 


ADVERTISEMENT*.  V 

painting  by  Inman.  The  work  is  in  all  respects 
— paper,  print,  binding,  and  contents — a  beautiful 
memorial  of  an  amiable  and  lamented  divine, 
whose  pure  light  shone  brightly  in  the  church. 
The  Memoir  is  brief  and  modest,  consisting  chief- 
ly of  extracts  from  his  correspondence  with  his 
friends.  The  "  Remains  "  comprise  a  great  va- 
riety of  extracts  from  Dr.  Nevins'  writings,  con- 
taining his  views  on  the  leading  questions  which 
interest  the  attention  of  the  christian  world. 

From  the  Morning  Star. 

Select  Remains  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Nevins, 
D.  D.,  with  a  Memoir,  with  an  elegant  portrait, 
from  a  painting  by  Inman. 

This  is  a  most  beautiful  work.  In  paper,  print, 
and  binding,  it  exceeds  any  new  work  that  we 
have  seen.  The  Memoir  is  correct  and  brief. 
The  Remains  comprise  a  variety  of  the  finest  ex- 
tracts from  the  writings  of  this  eminently  talented 
and  lamented  divine :  several  of  them  are  on  the 
doctrines  which  now  agitate  the  church. 

From  the  American  Baptist. 

Select  Remains  of  the  Rev.  William 

Nevins,  D.  D.    With  a  Memoir.    8vo.  pp.  398. 

With  Dr.  Nevins,  it  was  never  our  happiness 
to  be  personally  acquainted.  But  the  perusal  of 
this  work  has  left  a  deep  yet  unavailing  regret, 
that  we  should  have  been  contemporary  with  such 
a  choice  spirit — should  have  dwelt  in  the  same 
city  with  him,  and  it  may  be,  have  sided  by  him 
in  the  crowded  street,  and  yet  never  have  seen, 
and  never  have  known  him  ! 

And  so  will  it  be  with  many,  now  pressing 
with  us  for  the  goal,  who,  when  they  have  outrun 
us  in  the  Christian  stadium,  have  seized  the  gar- 


10 


ADVERTISEMENTS. 


land,  and  their  virtues  and  their  victories  have  been 
heralded  to  the  church  and  to  the  world,  we  shall 
regret  that  we  saw  them  not,  and  wonder  most 
of  all,  that  living  in  the  same  age,  sojourning  in 
the  same  cities,  and  perhaps  for  a  time  sheltered 
beneath  the  same  roof,  we  yet  should  have  let 
pass  unimproved  the  golden  opportunity  of  en- 
riching our  stores  of  piety  and  intelligence  by  an 
endeared  and  confiding  intercourse. 

To  us  the  very  sight  of  a  holy  man  is  sanctify- 
ing. We  love  to  gaze  on  his  resemblance  to  his 
Lord,  till  we  catch  his  spirit  and  are  changed 
into  the  same  image  !  What  gainers  then  might 
we  have  been,  had  we  been  brought  within  the 
influence  of  a  man,  a  Christian,  and  a  minister, 
so  richly  endowed  with  piety  and  intellect,  and 
around  whom  there  was  thrown,  in  foldings  of 
such  richness  and  grace,  the  beautiful  robe  of  hu- 
mility, as  was  Nevins  !  What  lessons  might 
we  have  drawn  from  his  holy  walk,  his  stern 
principles  of  integrity,  his  untiring  industry,  his 
various  and  successful  plans  of  usefulness,  and 
the  spirit  of  self-annihilation  which  enshrined  all 
in  its  burning  lustre  !    But  we  have  formed  an 

intimacy  with  him  through  his  "Remains," 

alas  !  that  the  response  should  be  from  the  grave ! 
—■and  their  perusal  has  left  upon  the  heart  the 
faint  impress  of  a  character,  which,  in  its  living 
influence,  must  have  been  peculiarly  and  emi- 
nently spiritual.  The  "  Memoir  "  which  intro- 
duces the  "  Remains,"  though  brief,  possesses  yet 
a  charm  which  other  and  more  elaborate  bio- 
graphies can  seldom  claim — that  of  permiting  the 
subject  himself  to  speak  out  the  history  of  his 
own  life  and  experience — so  that  the  memoir  of 
Nevins  might  be  justly  styled  an  auto-biography. 


ADVERTISEMENTS.  \\ 

The  extracts  from  his  diary  and  letters  will  be 
read  with  deep  interest — and  cold  and  unfeeling 
must  be  the  individual  who  can  linger  around 
the  touching  picture  of  his  desolated  and  broken 
heart,  mourning  over  the  grav«  of  her  who  was 
the  wife  of  his  youth  and  the  charm  of  his  life, 
and  feel  no  thrilling  emotion.  The  Christian, 
too,  who  is,  as  was  the  departed  Nevins,  all  his 
life-time  in  bondage  through  the  fear  of  death,  as 
he  stands  by  his  bed-side,  and  beholds  him  with  un- 
shaken faith  in  the  faithfulness  of  God,  and  lis- 
tens to  his  song,  though  tremulous  in  death,  of 
joy  and  triumph,  will  dismiss  his  fears,  and  com- 
mit his  soul  afresh  to  Him.  who  is  able  to  keep  it 
against  that  day. 

But  of  his  "Remains,"  what  shall  we  say? 
We  have  perused,  and  re-perused,  and  will  pe- 
ruse them  yet  again,  so  elevated  in  thought,  so 
pure  in  style,  so  eloquent  in  language,  and  so 
rich  in  piety  are  they.  We  think,  in  each  of 
these  particulars,  they  will  rank  with  •*  Pascal's 
and  Adam's  Thoughts,"  and  with  "  Searl's  Chris- 
tian Remembrancer."  By  their  side,  on  our  bio- 
graphical shelf,  we  have  placed  the  "  Remains  and 
the  Memoir  of  William  Nevins." 

The  work,  as  presented  to  the  public  by  its  en- 
terprising publisher,  John  S.  Taylor,  Park  Row, 
New- York,  is  a  beautiful  specimen  of  neatness  in 
typography,  and  elegance  in  binding.  Its  ap- 
pearance will  vie  with  any  book  in  this  depart- 
ment of  literature  which  we  have  yet  received 
either  from  the  English  or  the  American  press. 
That  the  fondest  hopes  which  influenced  Nevins 
m  writing,  Plumer  in  compiling,  and  Taylor 
in  publishing  this  work,  may  reach  the  utmost 
limits  of  realization,  is  our  sincerest  wish. 


12  ADVERTISEMENTS. 

From  the  Long-Island  Star. 

Select  Remains  of  the  Rev.  William  Nevins, 
D.  D.  with  a  Memoir — New- York-;— John  S. 
Taylor.  The  gifted  author  of  these  posthumous 
fragments,  while  in  the  midst  of  his  deeds  of 
charity  and  love,  and  before  he  had  reached  his 
manhood's  prime,  was  summoned  from  the  field 
of  his  labors  and  conflicts  to 

"  Join  the  caravan  that  moves 
"  To  the  pale  realms  of  shade." 

Perhaps  the  usefulness  of  the  art  of  printing 
is  never  so  forcibly  felt  as  when  death  suddenly 
severs  a  great  mind,  and  extinguishes  a  flaming 
light  from  among  the  living.  The  press  seems 
to  grasp  and  converge  the  rays  that  gather  over 
the  death-couch  of  the  devoted  in  piety  and  strong 
in  intellect,  and  pours  them  out  again  in  their  full 
effulgence, 

"  The  round  of  rays  complete," 

upon  a  benighted  world.  The  Press,  into  the  ever- 
lasting ear  of  its  memory,  seems  to  drink  up  the 
last  impressive  lesson  and  parting  benediction  of 
the  departing  patriarch,  as  he  takes  his  departure 
to  mingle  with  those  beyond  the  flood,  and  imparts 
to  them  an  immortal  voice,  whereby  "being  dead, 
he  yet  speaketh."     Truly  may  it  be  said  of  the 
lamented  Nevins,  "  being  dead,  he  yet  speaketh" 
— speaketh  in  the  kindness  of  heart  by  which  he 
was  endeared  to  the  social  circle — speaketh  by 
his  good  works,  for  which  the  widow  and  the 
fatherless  still  bless  his  memory — speaketh  in  his 
exemplary  piety,  which  made  him  a  "  burning 
and  a  shining  light"  to  a  captious  and  infidel 
people — speaketh  in  the  language  of  his  eloquent 
teachings  and  aspirations,  preserved  in  the  vo- 


ADVERTISEMENTS.  J3 

lume  before  us,  for  the  enlightenment  and  conso- 
lation of  the  wayfarer  on  life's  bleak  journey. 

From  Rev.  Wm.  Adams,  Pastor  of  the  Broome-st  Church,  New-York 

Memoir  and  Select  Remains  of  Nevins.~It 
would  be  difficult  to  mention  a  book  which  does 
more  credit  to  an  author  or  a  publisher  than 
this.  I  he  contents  are  like  "apples  of  ffold  in 
pictures  of  silver."  8 

Who  that  knew  the  lamented  author,  does  not 
see  his  image  reflected  from  these  pages— refined 
ornate,  thoughtful  and  spiritual.     We  see  him 
again  passing  through  his   various  and    diver- 
si  tied  trials— prosperity  and  adversity  sickness 
and    death,   and    coming  out    like    silver    that 
has  been   tried.     We  commend   especially  the 
fragments  which  were  written  under  the  great- 
est of  all  earthly  losses,  and  in  near  prospect  of 
his  own  departure.     They  breathe  the  spirit  of 
heaven      Blessed  be  God  for  such  an  exemplifi- 
cation of  faith  and  patience— for  this  new  evi- 
dence of  the  reality  and  stability  of  our  hopes. 
He  was  a  burning  and  a  shining  light,  and  many 
have  and  will  rejoice  in  that  light  * 

The  fragmentary  form  of  these  articles  will  in- 
sure frequent  perusal.  They  are  the  best  speci- 
mens of  this  description  since  the  Remains  of 
Oecil ;  with  less  of  his  mannerism  and  stvle 
there  is  more  of  simplicity  and  adaptedness  to' 
general  readers.  In  a  time  of'haste  and  little  re- 
flection their  brilliant  thoughts  may  arrest  atten- 
tion, and  lead  others  to  reflect  also. 

In  unqualified  terms  do  we  commend  this 
volume,  for  the  richness  of  its  contents  and  the 
uncommon  elegance  of  its  form. 

William  Adams. 


14  ADVERTISEMENTS. 

Practical  Thoughts.  By  the  late  Dr. 
Nevins,  of  Baltimore. 

Thoughts  on  Popery.  By  Dr.  Nevins, 
of  Baltimore. 

From  the  New-York  Observer  of  April  9th,  1836. 

The  Practical  Thoughts  consists  of  forty-six 
articles  on  prayer,  praise,  professing  Christ,  du- 
ties to  Sabbath  Schools,  the  monthly  concert,  the 
conversion  of  the  world,  violations  of  the  Sab- 
bath, liberality,  man's  inconsistency,  the  pity  of 
the  Lord,  Christian  duty,  death,  &c. ;  the  last  of 
which  are  "Heaven's  Attractions"  and  "The 
Heavenly  Recognition,"  closing  with  the  words, 
"  By  the  time  we  have  done  what  I  recommend, 
we  shall  be  close  upon  the  celestial  confines — 
perhaps  within  heaven's  limits."  *  *  * 

There  the  sainted  author  laid  down  his  pen, 
leaving  the  article  unfinished,  and  went,  none  can 
doubt,  to  enjoy  the  blest  reality  of  the  scenes  he 
had  been  so  vividly  describing. 

These  articles  combine  great  simplicity,  attrac- 
tiveness, and  vivacity  of  thought  and  style,  with 
a  spiritual  unction  scarcely  to  be  found  in  any 
other  writer.  Thousands  of  minds  were  impress- 
ed with  them  as  they  first  appeared ;  they  reprov- 
ed the  inconsistent  Christian,  roused  the  slumber- 
ing, and  poured  a  precious  balm  into  many  an 
afflicted  bosom.  While  writing  them,  the  author 
buried  a  beloved  wife,  and  had  daily  more  and 
more  sure  indications  that  the  hour  of  his  own 
departure  was  at  hand ;  and  God  enabled  him, 
from  the  depth  of  his  own  Christian  experience, 
to  open  rich  fountains  of  blessing  for  others. 

The  Thoughts  on  Popery  are  like,  and  yet  un- 
like, the  other  series.    There  is  the  same  spright- 


ADVERTISEMENTS.  15 

liness  of  the  imagination,  the  same  clearness,  ori* 
ginality,  and  richness  of  thought,  with  a  keen- 
ness of  argument,  and  sometimes  irony,  that  ex- 
poses the  baseness  and  shamelessness  of  the  dog- 
mas  and  superstitions  of  Popery,  and  that  must 
carry  home  conviction  to  the  understanding  and 
heart  of  every  unprejudiced  reader.  Piece  by 
piece  the  delusion,  not  to  say  imposition,  of  that 
misnamed  church  are  exposed,  under  the  heads  of 
the  Sufficiency  of  the  Bible,  the  Nine  Command- 
ments, Mortal  and  Venial  Sins,  Infallibility,  Idola- 
try, Relics,  the  Seven  Sacraments,  Penance,  the 
Mass,  Celibacy  of  the  Clergy,  Purgatory,  Canon- 
izing Saints,  Lafayette  not  at  Rest,  The  Leopold 
Reports,  Supererogation,  Convents,  &c.  We 
know  of  nothing  that  has  yet  been  issued  which 
so  lays  open  the  deformities  of  Popery  to  common 
minds,  or  is  so  admirably  adapted  to  save  our 
country  from  its  wiles,  and  to  guard  the  souls  of 
men  from  its  fatal  snares. 

Hints  to  Parents  on  the  Early 
Religious  Education  of  Children. 

By  Gardiner  Spring,  D.  D.,  Pastor  of  the 
Brick  Presbyterian  Church,  New- York.  18mo. 
with  a  steel  engraving.    Price  37^  cts. 

From  the  New-York  Weekly  Messenger  and  Young  Men's  Advocate. 

Dr.  Spring's  Hints  to  Parents. — One  of  the 
prettiest  little  works  of  this'  class  that  we  have 
ever  met  with,  is  just  published;  it  is  called 
"  Hints  to  Parents  on  the  Religious  Education 
of  Children.  By  Gardiner  Spring,  D.  D."  The 
author  has  been  long  and  favorably  known  to 
the  public  as  a  chaste,  powerful,  and  popular 
writer.  The  subject  of  the  present  work  is  one 
of  great  moment — one  in  which  every  parent  has 


16  ADVERTISEMENTS. 

a  real  interest.  And  we  commend  this  little  vo- 
lume, not  only  to  pious  parents,  but  to  all  who 
desire  to  bring  up  their  children  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  to  make  them  an  honor  to  themselves  and 
a  blessing  to  their  fellow-men. 

From  the  Commercial  Advertiser. 

Hints  to  Parents  on  the  Religious  Education 
of  Children.    By  Gardiner  Spring,  D.  D.    This 
beautiful   little  volume,  coming  out  at  this  time, 
will  be  peculiarly  acceptable  to  the  congregation 
of  the  able  and  excellent  author,  and  wilf  have 
the  effect  of  a  legacy  of  his  opinions  on  a  most 
important  subject,  now  that  for  a  time  they  are 
deprived  of  his  personal  instructions.    It  is  a 
work  that  should  be  in  the  hands  of  every  parent 
throughout  our  country,  who  has  the  temporal 
and  eternal  interest  of  his  offspring  at  heart. 
The  few  and  leading  maxims  of  the  Christian 
religion  are  plainly  and  practically  enforced,  and 
the  parent's  duties  are  descanted  on  in  a  train  of 
pure  and  beautiful  eloquence,  which  a  father's 
mind,  elevated  by  religion,  only  could  have  dic- 
tated.   We  believe  that  a  general  knowledge  of 
this  little  volume  would  be  attended  with  conse- 
quences beneficial  to  society,  since  a  practice  of 
its  recommendations  could  scarcely  be  refused  to 
its  solemn  and  affectionate  spirit  of  entreaty.  * 

The  Ministry  we  Need.    By  S.  H. 

Cox,  D.  D.,  and  others.    37J  cents. 

From  the  Literary  and  Theological  Review. 

This  neat  little  volume  comprises  the  inaugu- 
ral charge  and  address  which  were  delivered*on 
occasion  of  inducting  the  Professor  of  Sacred 
Rhetoric  and  Pastoral  Theology  in  the 
Theological  Seminary  at  Auburn.    The  friends 


ADVERTISEMENTS.  17 

of  Dr.  Cox  will  not  be  disappointed  in  his  inau- 
gural address.  It  bears  the  impress  of  his  talents 
and  piety — his  enlarged  views  and  Catholic  spi- 
rit. To  analyze  it  would  convey  no  adequate 
idea  of  its  merits.  His  theme  is  the  ministry  of 
reconciliation — "  the  chosen  medium  by  which 
God  conciliates  men — the  mighty  moral  engine- 
ry that  accomplishes  his  brightest  wonders — the 
authentic  diplomacy  of  the  King  of  kings  work- 
ing salvation  in  the  midst  of  the  earth."  The 
manner  in  which  he  treats  his  subject,  in  relation 
to  the  importance  of  the  Christian  ministry,  and 
the  kind  of  ministry  needed  in  this  age  and  na- 
tion, we  need  hardly  remark,  will  amply  repay 
the  perusal  of  his  brethren,  if  not  be  interesting 
and  instructive  to  the  Church  at  large. 

"  Error-scenting  notoriety"  may  not  altogether 
like  the  odor  of  this  little  book  ;  and  the  "  lynx- 
eyed  detecters  of  heresy"  will  not  be  forward  to 
approve  a  work  in  which  they  are  handled  with 
unsparing  severity  ;  but  by  "  all  the  favorers  on 
principle  of  a  pious,  sound,  educated,  scriptural, 
and  accomplished  ministry  in  the  Church  of 
God,  and  throughout  the  world,  as  the  ministry 
we  need,  to  whom  this  little  volume  is  most  re- 
spectfully inscribed,"  it  will  be  read,  and,  we 
trust,  circulated. 

The    Lily  of  the   Valley.     18mo. 
Price  37J  cents. 

From  the  Methodist  Protestant,  Baltimore. 

This  is  a  neat  and  very  interesting  little  vo- 
lume. The  narrative  throughout  will  be  read 
with  pleasure,  and  some  portions  of  it  with  thril- 
ling interest.  The  story  is  natural,  and  told  in 
very  neat  language  and  with  admirable  simplici- 
ty.   It  is  not  only  calculated  to  please  and  inter- 


18  ADVERTISEMENTS. 

est  the  mind  of  the  reader,  but  also  to  make  mo- 
ral and  religious  impressions  upon  the  heart. 
We  are  well  assured,  if  its  merits  were  general- 
ly known,  that  it  would  find  its  way  into  many 
families'and  Sabbath  school  libraries,  as  it  is  par- 
ticularly adapted  to  please  and  engage  the  atten- 
tion of  juvenile  readers. 

From  the  Christian  Intelligencer. 

This  is  a  republication  of  a  small  narrative 
volume  published  in  England.  The  narrative  is 
written  with  beautiful  simplicity,  possesses  a 
touching  interest,  and  is  calculated  to  leave  a 
salutary  impression.  It  is  well  fitted  for  a  pre- 
sent by  parents  or  friends  to  children,  and  is  wor- 
thy of  a  place  in  Sabbath  school  libraries. 

From  the  Ladies'  Morning  Star  of  Aug.  26,  1836. 

The  above  is  the  title  of  a  very  interesting  lit- 
tle work  of  123  pages,  recently  published  and  for 
sale  by  John  Taylor,  Brick  Church  Chapel, 
New- York.  It  is  a  simple  though  beautiful  nar- 
rative of  a  young  female,  some  portions  of  which 
are  of  the  most  pathetic  and  affecting  character, 
particularly  designed  for  the  edification  and  in- 
struction of  young  females,  and  a  most  excellent 
work  to  introduce  into  Sabbath  schools.  Its  ten- 
dency is  to  kindle  the  flames  of  piety  in  the  youth- 
ful bosom,  to  instruct  the  understanding,  and  to 
warm  and  improve  the  heart.  Its  intrinsic  though 
unostentatious  merits,"  should  furnish  it  with  a 
welcome  into  every  family. 

Commendatory  Notice,  by  the  Rev.  W.  Palton. 

Mr.  J.  S  Taylor, — It  affords  me  pleasure  to 
learn  that  you  are  about  to  republish  the  little 
work  called  "The  Lily  of  the  Valley."  Since 
the  time  it  was  presented  to  my  daughter  by  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Maiheson,  of  England,  it  has  been  a 


ADVERTISEMENTS.  19 

great  favorite  in  my  family.  It  has  been  read 
with  intense  interest  by  many,  who  have  from 
time  to  time  obtained  the  loan  of  it.  Indeed  it 
has  but  seldom  been  at  home  since  its  first  pe- 
rusal. I  doubt  not  but  all  who  have  read  it  will 
be  glad  of  the  opportunity  of  possessing  a  copy. 

The  story  is  not  only  natural,  but -instructive; 
and  well  calculated  to  impress  upon  the  mind  im- 
portant moral  and  religious  lessons.  Some  por- 
tions of  the  narrative  are  of  the  most  touching 
and  thrilling  character.  There  is  a  charming 
simplicity  pervading  the  work.  I  feel  a  strong 
confidence  that  you  will  find  an  ample  sale  for 
the  book.  It  will  find  its  way  into  many  families, 
and  be  found  in  the  libraries  of  the  Sabbath  school. 
Yours  respectfully, 

Wm.  Patton. 

Lights  and  Shadows  of  Christian 
Life.  By  William  C.  Brovvnlee,  D.  D.  $1   00. 

Christian  Retirement.  From  the 
eighth  London  edition.     $1   25. 

An  Earnest  Appeal  to  Christians, 
on  the  Duty  of  Making  Efforts  and 
Sacrifices  for  the  Conversion  of  the 
World.  By  Wm.  C.  Brownlee,  D.  D.  31 
cents. 

Popery  an  Enemy  to  Liberty,  By 
Wm.  C.  Brownlee,  D.  D.     31  cents. 

Thoughts  on  Evangelizing  the 
World.  By  Rev.  S.  H.  Skinner,  D.  D.  37 
cents. 

Thoughts  on  Religious  Educa- 
tion and  Early  Piety,  By  Rev.  Wm. 
S.  Plumer.    31  cents. 


20  ADVERTISEMENTS. 

Pleasure  and  Profit,  vol.  l.,  or  The 
Museum.    By  Uncle  Arthur.    37J  cents. 
Pleasure  and  Profit,  vol.  2.,  or  The 

Boy's  Friend.    By  Uncle  Arthur.    37J  cents. 

Pleasure  and  Profit,  vol.  3.,  or  Mary 

and  Florence.    By  Uncle  Arthur.    37J  cents. 

Missionary  Remains,  or  Sketches 

of  Evarts,  Cornelius,  and  Wisner.  By 
Gardiner  Spring,  D.  D.,  and  others.  37|  cents. 
The  Christian's  Pocket  Compan- 
ion* Selected  from  the  works  of  John  Ro- 
gers, Dr.  Owen,  David  Brainerd,  Presi- 
dent Edwards,  and  others,  with  an.  Introduc- 
tion by  Rev.  John  Blatchford,  of  Bridgeport, 
Conn.    25  cents. 

From  the  New-York  Observer. 

Christian1  s  Pocket  Companion.  This  very 
small  but  neat  manual,  just  published,  is  a  com- 
pilation of  some  of  the  purest  sentiments  and  ho- 
liest aspirations  of  such  men  as  Owen,  Rogers, 
Brainerd,  and  President  Edwards.  We  venture 
to  say  that  no  Christian  can  make  it  the  familiar 
companion  of  his  heart,  as  well  as  "  pocket," 
without  becoming  evidently  a  holier  and  a  hap- 
pier man. 

Sermons.  By  Rev.  Charles  G.  Finney. 
With  a  Portrait.    $1   00. 

The  sermons  are  twelve  in  number,  on  the  fol- 
lowing subjects : 

1.  Sinners  bound  to  change  their  own  hearts. 

2.  How  to  change  your  heart. 

3.  Traditions  of  the  elders. 

4.  5.   Total  depravity. 

6.  Why  sinners  hate  God. 

7.  God  cannot  please  sinners. 


ADVERTISEMENTS.  21 

8.  Christian  Affinity. 

9.  Stewardship. 

10.  Doctrine  of  Election. 

11.  Reprobation. 

12.  Love  of  the  World. 

It  will  be  seen,  from  a  glance  at  the  subjects, 
that  this  volume  contains  Mr.  Finney's  mode  of 
elucidating  several  highly  important  points  of 
doctrine  and  duty,  and  will  be  read  with  interest 
and  profit  every  where,  pp.  277,  8vo.   Price  $1. 

From  the  Morning  Star. 

Sermons  on  Important  Subjects,  by  Rev.  C  G. 
Finney.     Third  edition,  pp.  277,  large  octavo. 

This  volume  comprises  twelve  sermons,  on 
highly  important  practical  subjects,  which  ought 
to  address  themselves  to  the  serious  consideration 
of  every  man,  woman,  and  child  of  Adam.  These 
sermons  were,  we  believe,  principally  delivered 
in  the  Chatham-street  Chapel,  and  set  forth,  in  a 
clear,  forcible  and  convincing  manner,  the  re- 
verend author's  views  of  the  Gospel-truths  of 
wrhich  he  treats.  The  style  is  plain  and  senten- 
tious, though  wrought  with  much  originality, 
and  characterized  by  the  boldness,  energy  and 
persuasiveness  of  its  author. 

The  reasoning  is  sound,  and  the  deductions 
logical  and  clear.  Man  is  here  depicted  as  he  is, 
in  all  the  attributes  of  his  character,  and  he  is 
shown  more  of  himself  than  in  most  instances  he 
ever  knew  before.  The  doctrines  we  consider 
as  altogether  purely  evangelical,  entirely  com- 
patible with  those  of  divine  revelation,  and  sus- 
ceptible of  demonstration  by  reference  to  its  sa- 
cred pages.  This  author  has  been  much  abused 
by  those  who  either  did  not  fully  understand  the 
import  and  tendency  of  his  language  and  doc- 


22  ADVERTISEMENTS. 

trines,  or  by  those  who  perhaps  had  formed  pre- 
conceptions of  a  character  in  hostility  to  the  opi- 
nions and  doctrines  he  advances ;  or  by  others 
again  who  did  not  wish  to  believe  the  important 
truths  he  uttered,  lest  they  should  be  reproved. 
We  have  not  only  heard  but  read  his  sermons, 
and  however  much  we  charitably  differ  from 
others,  consider  these  sermons  as  valuable  auxili- 
aries in  the  schools  of  Christian  instruction.  Their 
approval  by  the  Christian  public  is  evident  from 
the  issue  of  this  third  edition. 

From  the  Long-Island  Star. 

Sermons  on  Important  Subjects,  by  the  Rev. 
C.  G.  Finney— New- York — John  S.  Taylor. 
Man}'  of  the  themes  of  this  volume  are  upon  de- 
bateable  ground,  and  we  are  therefore,  by  the 
character  of  our  paper,  precluded  from  speaking 
affirmatively  or  negatively  about  the  correctness 
of  the  views  therein  inculcated.  There  are  some, 
however,  of  a  more  general  and  practical  charac- 
ter, which,  from  the  force  of  argument  and  the 
vigor  of  imagination  in  wrhich  they  are  clothed, 
appeal  most  powerfully  to  the  common  mind. 
However  diversified  the  opinions  respecting  Mr. 
Finney's  mere  theological  merits,  all  must  unite 
in  awarding  him  talents  of  a  very  high  order. 
This  volume  well  sustains  his  pretensions  as  a 
man  of  commanding  abilities.  We  would  say, 
en  passant,  that  the  works  issued  by  John  S.  Tay- 
lor are  invariably  executed  in  a  very  superior 
style  of  type,  paper,  and  binding ;  and  in  this  he 
deserves  the  thanks  of  those  readers  who  have  a 
taste  to  gratify,  or  eyes  to  preserve. 

Prevailing  Prayer.   By  Rev.  C.  G. 

Finney.    32mo.     12J  cents. 


ADVERTISEMENTS.  23 

Sinners  Bound  to  change  their 
OWll  Hearts.  A  Sermon,  by  'J.  G.  Finney, 
For  five  dollars  a  hundred,  or  six  cents  single. 

How  to  change  Your  Heart.    A 

Sermon,  by  C.   G.   Finney.    For  five  dollars   a 
hundred,  or  six  cents  single. 

The  Works  of  Rev.  Daniel  A. 
Clark.     In  three  volumes.    $3  00. 

Advice  to  a  Brother.  By  a  Mission- 
ary.    31  cents. 

Early  Piety.  By  Rev.  Jacob  Abbott, 
18|  cents. 

Scripture  Gems.  Morocco,  gilt.  25 
cents. 

The  National  Preacher,  printed  in 
an  elegant  pamphlet  form,  each  number  contain- 
ing two  Sermons  from  living  Ministers.  Month- 
ly. Edited  by  Rev.  Austin  Dickinson.  Price 
one  dollar  a  year  in  advance. 

The  Sabbath  School  Visiter,  pub- 
lished by  the  Massachusetts  Sabbath  School  So- 
ciety. Edited  by  Rev.  Asa  Bullard,  Boston.  50 
cents. 

Also  Agent  for 
The   Missionary  Herald,  published 
for  the   American  Board  of  Commissioners  for 
Foreign  Missions.     Monthly.     $1  50  a  year. 

Also  Publisher  of 
The  Naval  Magazine.  Edited  by  the 
Rev.    C.   S.    Stewart,  M.  A.,  of  the  U.  S.   Navy. 
$3  00  a  year,  payable  in  advance. 

J.  S.  T.  has  also  a  large  and  choice  selection 
of   Miscellaneous  Works,  suitable    for    Sunday 


24  ADVERTISEMENTS. 

School    Libraries;    together  with   Theological, 
Classical,  Moral,  and   Religious  Books,  Station 
ary,  &c,  all  of  which  he  will  sell  at  the  lowest 
price. 

A  constant  supply  of  the  Publications  of  the 
Massachusetts  Sabbath  School  Society,  the  Ame- 
rican Sunday  School  Union,  and  of  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Sunday  School  Union,  at  the  same 
price  as  sold  at  their  respective  Depositories. 

N.  B.  Orders  from  the  country  will  be  imme- 
diately attended  to,  and  books  forwarded  accord- 
ing to  directions.  Should  the  selection  of  books 
for  Sunday  Schools  be  left  with  J.  S.  T.,  and  he 
should  forward  any  which  should  not  suit  the 
purchaser,  they  may  be  returned,  and  the  money 
will  be  refunded,  or  other  books  given  in  ex- 
change. Those  wishing  to  purchase,  are  invited 
to  call  and  examine  his  stock. 


